"Supported" by itself may be vague, but in conjunction with "materially" it has some more substance.

I don't support any of this legislation; it's a blot on the nation's soul. But vagueness isn't the argument I'd level against it. It's just wrong.

Crypto-moderate or pseudo-moderate?

Call me naive, but I think the over-reaching has gone too far, and the Publicans will have to pay the piper com November 8th.

I honestly have faith - faith that the American public is not as lazy and complacent and afraid as I fear; and that they are not as lazy and complacent and afraid as the craven traitors who make up the Publican fear-mongering machine hope they are for just one more election cycle. These people are more interested in protecting "Bush's legacy" than they are protecting the American people.

They have no ideas, so they trade in fear. They have no record to stand on, so they wrap themselves in the flag. They have no morals so they question the patriotism of anyone who dares question them or their motives and methods.

I have faith that America will see through it all, finally. I have faith that a revolution will take place at the ballot box on November 7th.

But most of all, I have faith that the Publicans will wake up on November 8th wondering why their asses hurt and who took their clothes.

Well, I was going to do the Al parody for the night but I'm too tired. Could someone else please take care of it? Thanks.

If we had fought any other war on the premise that one was allowed to attack only those actively taking military action against us, and not those who supported and supplied them, how long would we have lasted?

Hey, if you contribute to a charity which might have something to with one of them non-Christian religions, or worse, no religion at all, then you oughtta be put in jail!

Why is Arlen Specter such a joke? All hat, no cattle, for sure.

In the earlier bills, the military commission jurisdiction was pretty clearly limited to "ALIEN enemy combatants." So just because the definition of "EC" (sans "alien") is expanded doesn't necessarily mean it ropes in citizens within the commissions' jurisdiction. They would have to repeal other parts of the statute to do that. Just do a ctrl-f for "alien" in the current final version and you'll see what i mean.

So maybe the Post was mixed up. But then again, we are dealing with the bush administration and the GOP House, so who the hell knows.

i know we can count on john mccain though

Citizen:

In every single controversy in this war, the Left has taken the side that has made life easier for the terrorists. Some voters might notice that, too.

I am off to bed myself. But on the topic of Habeus Corpus, we all owe Senator Spectre a debt of gratitude for standing firm and upholding the letter and spirit of the constitution. He is the last line of defense in the war against the craven neo-con movement that runs counter to the principle that I grew up believing America stood for.

I'm kinda pissed off that my halo has been tarnished by these asshats.

to someone who is engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States

That means all Democrats are "unlawful enemy combatants"! *Snicker*

Kevin: And how about the Democrats? Will they fight this? We'll have to wait and see, but their performance has been pretty uninspiring so far.

So has yours. Anyone who is not calling for Bush's impeachment loudly and clearly at this time is nothing but an enabler of this administration's torture and other crimes. When Republicans say that if Democratss win they will hold hearings and hold Bush and others to account, Dems should come right out and say, "YOU DAMN RIGHT WE WILL!" This ugliness can't be undone. If they and you roll over for this, any remnants of democracy are lost, as are liberty and justice. Talking about this around the edges and nitpicking about the details and severity of it are not enough. You've got to SCREAM that you won't stand for it! SCREAM about it in your sleep! Don't even think about fluffing your pillows and getting comfortable. Fascism will get plenty of people you care about eventually also, maybe even you. There are no allied forces coming to our rescue.

The war is the controversy, stupid.

Wonder how the snickerpoodles are going to feel when their party is out and they find they see a lib taking advantage of the imperial powers His Royal Chimpness has taken for himself.

I emailed Spectre's office to let him know that in this battle, he isn't just Pennsylvania's senator, he has the support of persons of good conscience all over the country. Today, he is the closest thing we have to a Senator Symington.

I mean it this time - goodnight.

Um. Suppose I start a war in, say, Iraq. Suppose that war turns out to have materially supported hostilities against the United States.

Can I be detained without the right to a lawyer? What level of proof is needed to detain me?

I disagreed with giving line-item veto to Clinton because I thought it gave the executive too much power. I guess I feel the same way about giving Bush's successors the right to make him disappear. As much as I don't like him, I think that's a piss poor approach to politicking, and only bad would come of it.

"to someone who is engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States"

That means all Democrats are "unlawful enemy combatants"! *Snicker*

The word "hostilities" is ominously vague, too.

Over a week ago I e-mailed 25 senators and my representatives concerning the suspension of habeas corpus.

Arlen is looking a lot older these days. I'm glad he stood up (I e-mailed him), and at least the debate is out there. Last week I do not remember hearing any Democratic congressmen or senators standing up to be counted on this specific complaint which goes to the heart of innocence or guilt and the ability of any authority to abuse detention.

E-mail some people!

monkeybone nailed it. The left is wrong as a matter or policy. They're also polically wrong, and morally wrong.

Taking the last first, the most moral thing we can do is to win the GWOT, with as much certainty and speed as possible. Our victory will end the mass killings and and other unsavory practices perpetuated by the terrorists.

Politically, I think a majority of Americans understand that the priority is to win. I think a majority will support the candidate who focuses on victory rather than the candidate who focuses on legal rights for terrorists.

Policy: the terrorist rights folks are prolonging the reign of terror and making the victory of civilized peoples less certain.

Can you imagine the terrorist rights folks transported back in time? The US would try to close down a Soviet Gulag or a Nazi death camp, but the terrorists rights folks and the ACLU would get an injunction keeping the death camps and Gulags operating until the right to close them down had been litigated up to the Supreme Court.

No doubt some of you will respond with slippery slope arguments, which could conceivably have validity. You may argue that that abuses are possible. I would agree that abuses are theoretically possible, but we know of none. OTOH real atrocities committed almost daily by terrorists.

I emailed Spectre's office to let him know that in this battle, he isn't just Pennsylvania's senator, he has the support of persons of good conscience all over the country

Specter is a piece of shit water carrier for the Bush crime syndicate. Quit talking about him like he's some kind of white-hat hero. He always caves. But it wouldn't matter if he didn't. You make it sound as if it will be some kind of victory to retain the so-called compromise reached by the other water carrying trio, McCain, Warner and Lindsey. It was already horrific.

The idea that "unlawful enemy combatant" even has currency as a term is testimony as to how far astray this debate has gone.

The term is made-up, undefined, and means whatever GWB and his minions want it to, when they want it to. It is not a legal defnition, it is a legal fiction with real-world consequences for the 14,000 people we hold now without charge around the world.

Dammit Kevin, you focus on the word "support" when the whole goddamn idea of an unlawful combatant is so morally and legally repugnant. It simply is. This is not a debate about "support," it is an effort to retain the idea that if the government holds you against your will, you have a right to dispute it in a court of law according to long-established procedures. Not just the constitution, but the Magna Carta.

British Kings treated the people of this country better than our current administration.

some of you will respond with slippery slope arguments

We're well down the slippery slope already, current-fascist.

Did you cry this much when Timothy McVeigh got a proper trial?

Mr. Never, ever liberal --

"The most moral thing we can do...." But disregarding all the innocent people WE have already killed and maimed, the innocent people we have and still do detain with no due process, and the innocent people we have already tortured (and I have no reason to believe we do not still). Nice morality!

"Politically...." No one is not focussing on winning the GWOT except those that should be. Ask the 9/11 Commission. This administration, abetted by the silent majority in both houses, is doing nothing to win the war, only to make it worse.

"Policy...." There is no reign of terror except in the pussified minds of the Repugnuts who can only use fear to ramp support for their baseless pollicies that drain our resources, monetary, moral and military strength.

It's no good turning logic on its head. That only works in the Repugnut rallies. You guys support the Constitution only as rhetoric. When push comes to shove, you all run away from it and the moral strength it stands for. No surprise there!

Atrocities will always be committed by both sides in any war. The sign of civilization is to minimize those on your side whatever the opposition. Maybe something to be learned from Saladdin there?

Certainly not from you.

Anyway, when were you ever a liberal? In a previous life?

Did you cry this much when Timothy McVeigh got a proper trial?

ex-human only cries when a privileged son of a dead billionaire has to make do on only $700 million because of the terrorist inspired death tax.

The war is the controversy, stupid.

Ha, ha. You're not stupid. You know exactly what I meant. Go down the list yourself.

ex-liberal:

> monkeybone nailed it. The left is wrong as a matter or policy.
> They're also polically wrong, and morally wrong.

The right may be capable of demagoguing this issue by
stimulating the very fear that terrorists are trying to
induce to cripple our society and using it to win elections
-- but you are wrong both morally and as a matter of policy.

> Taking the last first, the most moral thing we can do
> is to win the GWOT, with as much certainty and speed as
> possible. Our victory will end the mass killings and and
> other unsavory practices perpetuated by the terrorists.

Problem: You can't win the GWoT on the battlefield. Evidence:
The new NIE, which says that the Iraq war has led to an explosion
of new terrorist activity. We'll win the war against terrorism when
the people who support it realize it's counterproductive. The IRA
eventually laid down its arms and became a key part of the Northern
Irish government. That's a sort of general template. And this
wasn't done by annihilating the organization through force of arms
but rather by negotiating with former terrorists like Gerry Adams.

It's going to be a long struggle. What we should avoid doing is
*prolonging* it by making war on countries instead of terrorists.

Democrats are refusing to make a bad situation worse.

> Politically, I think a majority of Americans understand that
> the priority is to win. I think a majority will support the
> candidate who focuses on victory rather than the candidate
> who focuses on legal rights for terrorists.

The problem is, ex-lib, you can't even define victory in a way
that's remotely realistic. If Iraq becomes stable -- who's
to say that it won't remain a jihadi target as an American ally?

The left's position -- strengthened law enforcement, better
relations with moderate Muslims, not posing an existential
threat to Islamic regimes we don't like because that only
strengthens the hardliners, is simple common sense.

> Policy: the terrorist rights folks are prolonging the reign of
> terror and making the victory of civilized peoples less certain.

The patriotic Americans who are standing up for American values are
denying terrorists a moral victory by insisting that our nation
doesn't strip all of us of the very rights the terrorists claim
to hate. This is in itself a victory for civilized peoples.

Bob

In every single controversy in this war, the Left has taken the side that has made life easier for the terrorists. Some voters might notice that, too.
Posted by: monkeybone

the NIE has said that the illegal invasion of Iraq which bush lied us into has increased terrorism. therefore, bush and the entire cabal of war criminals have "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

therefore, it seems logical that these are the ones we go after, hold without trials, torture until they confess to misleading america, and then execute.

even that much legality is more than they deserve.

your a centrist media puke Kevin...divide the public for your monkey master,,centrist media fuck take you fucking wapo with you crimsom magenta Harvard fucks, your a lemming as rush or o'reilly is , centrist media fuckheads,fuck you greedy bastards

FUCK THE ELITIST PRICKS AND YOU!!

WORTHLESS FUCKS

Dick:

Do you have a point?

Bob

monkeyboob --

Just as the idiots in charge didn't have the imagination nor take advice from experienced advisors to know what they were getting into when they invaded Iraq, so they (and you) do not have the imagination to know what it takes to win a war against terrorists.

The fact that it is the exact policies of this administration that plot the course to losing the so-called Global War on Terror in a most complete and emphatic manner is beyond your (and their) comprehension.

It's a most expensive lesson and yet none of them show any sign of having learned anything so far. Amazing!

"Stay the course!" "As they stand up...!" He marched them up to the top of the hill...!

monkeybone:

> In every single controversy in this war, the Left has taken
> the side that has made life easier for the terrorists.

Did the mainstream, responsible left (not counting pacifist
and fringe groups) oppose the war in Afghanistan? Nope.

They opposed the war in Iraq? Why? Because they knew damn well
it would do precisely what those lunatic Commie leftists at the
CIA just said that it did -- make life much easier for terrorists.

Al Qaeda used to be a hierarchical organization. Now it's
mestastacized into myriad tiny stand-alone cells spread the
world over (and linked by the internet) who need only to be
inspired by Osama but otherwise are totally independent.
It makes terrorism much harder to eradicate at the roots.

Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, "Extraordinary rendition" of innocent guys
to countries that *really* torture, Fallujah, the rape and
immolation of a 14-year-old girl and the cold-blooded murder of her
family -- all these things have amounted to a recruitment bonanza.
The Iraq war did Osama's heavy lifting and made jihad *cool*.

> Some voters might notice that, too.

Indeed.

Bob

No doubt some of you will respond with slippery slope arguments, which could conceivably have validity. You may argue that that abuses are possible. I would agree that abuses are theoretically possible, but we know of none. OTOH real atrocities committed almost daily by terrorists.
Posted by: ex-liberal

an innocent candadian whome we sent abroad to be tortured. abu ghraib. ... Saying that we "know of none" is either ignorant, dishonest, or racist. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is not one of the latter two.

do abuses only count when it happens to white people?

"your a centrist media puke Kevin...divide the public for your monkey master"

Gee, where'd you get 'you're' education, Dicky, and is it too late to get your money back?

Boy, those damn centrists sure are dividing the public these days, aren't they? I don't know how much more of this reasonable stuff coming from the middle we can possibly stand! It's making us ball our widdle fists. (Or widdle Fwists, as the case may be.)

Yes, this bill is utterly shameful, and it nearly brings me to tears to think that this can happen in our country in this day and age.

BUT...

I still feel this is a necessary sacrifice at this time, and I pray the Dems don't fall into Karl Rove's trap. Fighting this bill now equals losing the midterms equals Bush unfettered in the coming war with Iran equals conflagration in the Middle East equals final sharp break between the U.S. and Europe. Oh, and a much deeper budget hole.

We can turn this back at a later time. This country has always turned back the fascist impulses when the time came -- I don't suspect will have any internment camps between now and when we finally receive the unconditional surrender of Terror.

For now, we may have to sacrifice the people in Guantanamo to save much greater suffering in the coming years. It's not right, but neither was firebombing Dresden. Sometimes innocent people suffer and die in the name of fighting off a bigger threat, and right now George W. Bush is the biggest threat to peace and prosperity on the entire planet.

No, strike that. The biggest threat are our fellow American citizens who would even consider returning a Republican Congress to do this evil man's bidding for two more years.

What I would be a lot more worried about is the definition of materially support.
That, to me, could be stretched to mean sedition (thought crimes by another description).
If materially means 'with material' it doesn't but if it means 'substantially' then it does and the word can be used in both ways.
If I then stand up and state, or write an article or blog post, that says something along the lines of ' you know, these insurgents might be right, maybe they do have a right to attack invading troops' that is certainly aid and support, but is it material? Is it illegal under this new proposed law?
Do we really want to have sedition back in US law? Or am I being overblown, got the wrong end of the stick?

skeptic --

And I bet that was one of the arguments used in Germany as Hitler rose to power. "We'll go along with this and hold our nose, and get him later."

Moral relativism and hypocrisy is exactly where the Repugnuts and fellow-travellers find their justification.

Sorry. Just can't and will not go there.

It will only get harder or, perhaps, impossible down the road. Which is exactly what made bombing Dresden necessary.

Anyway. I think this is one argument the US citizenry might understand.

We already know some of the Republican representatives get it.

Wouldn't want to raise any objections over the suspension of one of the fundamental principles of our system of jurisprudence, would we, Arlen? Nope. Not if it is seen as going against the boy genius in the White House.

Good God in Heaven!

I can't believe the types of discussions we are having in Bushworld America these days! - What constitutes torture? Should we suspend habeas corpus? Do we have to allow terrorist defendants to see the evidence we have against them?

Wake up, people! This is no longer America. This is some type of Bizarro world neo-fascist armed madhouse we have become. Conservatives need some intense remedial American history and Constiutional law classes! [And Arlen Specter need to be put out to pasture....]

The ultimate interrogation device for persons suspected of being actively involved in terrorist organizations would be a lie detector that actually works. Generally, it is hard to have a lie detection session for someone who is not willing to participate. By making their life sufficiently uncomfortable (such as serving fortified oatmeal three times a day)co-operation in a session might be coerced.

I believe that, sooner or later, lie detection based on actual scanning of brain activity during questioning will become highly reliable. I believe that chemically blocking the formation of short term memories while interrogating someone over a period of months can reveal all the small lies that often must be invented to conceal a big lie. Word search the Cephos Corp. or go to NoLieMRI.com.
I believe that making someone uncomfortable or inconvenienced is not torture.
Most of all, I believe that we will know when any Islamofascistic terror organization gets their first WMD because they will use it without hesitation. Once a major world city is impacted the whole legalistic discussion about the treatment of WOT detainees will change dramatically again.

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. - Sinclair Lewis.

宝贝计划下载 性爱图片 台湾18电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康图片 性教育电影 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线下载 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 美女乳房 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 人体艺术摄影 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情

Well duh! Kevin did say it was impossible for the Dems to do anything.

What is Kevin expecting? The centrist blogs have already give the Dems the right to ignore this bill, the permission to ignore this bill. After telling Democrats to ignore the bill, why does Kevin care.

It is to politically risky - Dems got the word from centrist blogs - don't do anything. At least Kevin won't see anything wrong with doing nothing, its not Kevin that will ever be torture, from safety of Al From blog. It just not how everybody feels.

Oh, ....and John McCain didn't compromise anything, McCain gave Bush the right to do whatever the hell Bush wanted to do to torture people.

Hey, it beats "Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations".

That would include, among other things, lawyers representing members of designated groups and all the school teachers in Gaza. I don't think Guantanomo is big enough.

It's in the patriot act.

DEMS will be coming at you like sand in a sandstorm during these remaining weeks...they need to hear that there won't be contributions if there isn't evidence of resistance to these detainee bills and speaking up about all the amunition that is available to use against these guys. ENOUGH OF THE QUIET...

Stephen Colbert did a BRILLIANT piece on the "game" the Repugs played with the "rebel senators" ...having your OPPOSITION be from your own party allows you to continue to call the shots...especially when McCave and Spector are part of the gang!

HabeAs corpus! Why does everyone insist on spelling it Habeus? It's a verb form, the Latin subjunctive second person singular of habere, to have. Used as the imperative: have the body.

Losing battle, I know...

I wouldn't celebrate too soon. Please turn your shit detectors to high.

I'm with Elizabeth Holtzman: this bill is a smokescreen to "pardon" Bush, et al. after the fact, since it "guts the War Crimes Act of 1996."

Here's Holtzman in the Chicago Sun-Times on Sunday:

"The 'pardon' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The 'pardon' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11."

This is a very important piece that hasn't received the attention it deserves.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/68705,CST-EDT-REF23B.article

As for Little Lord Lindsey: He wants to be the next attorney general under McCain.

Are you sure it's not "torqueas corpus"?

Buzzard, you are so right, my mistake! That's where America's gone wrong all these years. Good thing our rulers are finally setting things right.

There are 45 Democrats in the Senate. None of them it seems have the balls to stand up for America.

We are left with the efforts of a few Republican senators who have raised serious objections. The first group, McCain, Graham and Warner, caved, right on que.

Spector will cave. He has before and he will now. He just can't help himself.

Habeas Corpus is soooooo pre 9/11.

Let's knock the Republicans out of office in November. That will stop the bleeding.

Beyond that we need to throw all the cowards out.

I have never been more ashamed of the elected members of the Democratic party than I have been this week. I know they are playing rope a dope, but not a single voice in the wilderness. Comeon.

"I believe that making someone uncomfortable or inconvenienced is not torture."

I propose that we waterboard Mr. Cook until he confesses the error of this statement . . .

Considering the rhetoric coming from Camp GOP "who has purposefully and materially supported" could be construed as the entier Democratic party, any that don't check their brain at the door and support the president, and occassional some members of their own party.

skeptic: I still feel this is a necessary sacrifice at this time, and I pray the Dems don't fall into Karl Rove's trap. Fighting this bill now equals losing the midterms

This is the same appeasement crap, the same enabling bullshit, the same abandonment of the Constitution and the People that, during the 2002 midterms, was responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq and the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children. The blood from the mangled bodies of thousands upon thousands of innocent children is on the hands of this administration, the Democrats who attempted to preserve their jobs until they could rectify things at a "later time," and upon anyone who supported their criminal endeavors. So too will the suffering of torture victims be on the hands of all those who do not vigorously oppose this hateful legislation.

It's all well and fine to sit back and rant endlessly about "throw the bums out" (and all the rest) all the time, but personally, I'd like to see just who it is, exactly, we propose to REPLACE them with? We know what the problems are, now how about solutions?

Serious candidates please?

Kerry is toast.
Hillary is toast.
Gore is toast.
Dean is toast.

Just who, exactly, do we (or anyone) propose to put into this fight that has both the moral courage and honesty (short version - honor) and fortitude to stand up and put the US back on the right track, AND, who will have the faintest chance of winning an election?

The Dems are becoming a pathetic shadow. Are we truly faced with such a dearth of honorable candidates as this? The silence is deafening.

Enabling waterboarding is a crime. Any legislator who votes for this 'compromise' is committing a war crime. There is no statute of limitations. Make sure your legislators knows this.

I wonder why ex-liberal thinks that opposing war is not a moral thing to do? He obviously was not listening well during Sunday school. I better alert Lucifer to build an especially warm fire in hell for him.

I believe that by "materially supported hostilities against the United States" they mean "donated money to Hezbollah or other Arab militias".

It's important to note that the re-definition of enemy combatant has nothing to do with the provisions denying detainees access to habeas corpus. As Marty Lederman puts it at Balkinization:

It is worth noting one thing about the breadth of the habeas-stripping provision, both in the new draft and in last week's version, that has thus far received inadequate attention in the public debate. That provision would eliminate the right to petition for habeas for all alleged alien enemy combatants, whether or not the detainee has been determined to be an "unlawful" combatant -- indeed, even if the detainee is deemed a lawful combatant (e.g., a POW) -- and no matter where they are detained, including in the United States.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/it-gets-worse.html

We need to give our President the power to indefinitely detain anyone who criticizes the United States or our government. I have a few neighbors who are Democrats and I just KNOW they hate America. I'd be delighted to call Homeland Security and have them disappear. Boy, won't they be sorry!

It's obvious that some people of the Republican persuasion like tyrnanny. Just so long as they're the ones doing the tyrannizing, of course. The evidence was offered during the recent Clinton scolding of the Fox Bozo: the same people so enthusiastic about the Iraq War were calling for an immediate withdrawal in Somalia. Such principled defenders of liberty and such compassionate supporters of the downtrodden and endangered. Their deepest-held beliefs can survive anything. Well, except a party official offering a rationale for abandoning it.

It's obvious that some people of the Republican persuasion like tyrnanny. Just so long as they're the ones doing the tyrannizing, of course.

See the Authoritarinism thread below.

News Flash: Jesus Christ returned to Earth this morning and promptly began criticising the human race for its warmaking, torture, hate and greed. Mr. Christ, apparently a foreign national with no identification papers of any kind, was quickly arrested by US agents and is now being transferred to Guantanamo for questioning.

"He fits the profile of a terrorist," one agent said, who preferred to remain anonymous. "He has olive skin, long hair and a beard, wears Middle Eastern clothes and is obviously some kind of religious fanatic. He is obviously a threat to every American. We plan to use our alternative interrogation techniques to make Mr. Christ tell us what he knows."

There can and will be volumes written on how bad this ‘compromise’ is- for the fate of the Constitution and the American Republic, the rule of law, for the American people, for the universal rights of man, for the immortal souls of those who sanction and carry out torture, etc.- but we have to remember that Republicans care nothing for the good of the country, or good government and certainly not the good of mankind (HA!). They certainly don't worry about their souls given their penchant for sending human beings into the meat grinder of war. For them, rights, constitutions, and public institutions are all materiel for Machiavellian subterfuge.

They would love nothing more than to attack Democrats from the right and the left, so they launch an assault that will get the left up in arms and mobilize the base against the enemy. It is classic.

However egregious the habeas issue, the Democrats must not fall into the usual trap. They will have to be crafty to protect their left flank while they preserve their appeal to the many who are dissatisfied with Republican rule.

At election time it is always necessary to grit one’s teeth and look past the ‘issues’.

skeptic: Yes, this bill is utterly shameful, and it nearly brings me to tears to think that this can happen in our country in this day and age.

BUT...

I still feel this is a necessary sacrifice at this time, and I pray the Dems don't fall into Karl Rove's trap.

-----------

This is what is known as a concern troll. Do not feed.

Jerry: If we had fought any other war on the premise that one was allowed to attack only those actively taking military action against us, and not those who supported and supplied them, how long would we have lasted?

As long as we did in Vietnam?

Global: But also, some people seem to like *being* tyrannized. People whose livelihoods are being flushed down the drain by vast Republican handouts to corporate execs but keep voting Republicans in because the Republicans are making them so afraid of the terrorism whose flames the Republicans are fanning that they look to--who else? Republicans to protect them.

But I suppose you're right; in the midst of all this BEING tyrannized, at least you get to enjoy the perverse fantasy of having the power to torture somebody else. Fun!

And how is it determined whether someone is an "unlawful enemy combatant" by engaging in or eupporting hostilities?
By a court where coerced or hearsay testimony may be allowed? With no right to appeal to U.S. courts?

How many times have we heard that critism of the President or the war gives aid and comfort to the enemy? How many times have we heard critics of the war called traitors? It only follows that critics of the war will be accused of purposefully and materially supporting the terrorists and hostilities against the United States. If something isn't done to stop this legislation, critics will be silenced and our nation turn into a Soviet style totalitarian government. Never could happen? Really? Five years ago how many people would have believed that Congress would be debating the use of torture? Someone should compile clips of speeches condemning the Soviets or Saddam transposed against policies the Republicans have either advocated or implemented over the past five years. What we have historically "hated" is exactly what we are becoming. Wake up America!

"However egregious the habeas issue," etc.

No! The Democrats must stop acting like a bunch of gutless wankers and defend the decency and lawfulness of the republic. Enough.

Kevin seems to have missed another part of the proposed bill that makes it applicable rectroactively, beginning in 1997.

Who says we don't have fascism?

"Can you imagine the terrorist rights folks transported back in time? The US would try to close down a Soviet Gulag or a Nazi death camp, but the terrorists rights folks and the ACLU would get an injunction keeping the death camps and Gulags operating until the right to close them down had been litigated up to the Supreme Court."

Ah, the ignorance of the rightwinger. The facts of the current situation, when plugged into your little scenario, shitforbrains, are as follows: the "US" is fighting FOR the creation of gulags and a torture regime. The "terrorist rights folks and the ACLU" are fighting to close them.

Thanks for once again proving that when you scratch a rightwinger you find a Stalinist or a Nazi.

I would agree that abuses are theoretically possible, but we know of none.

We know of plenty, you just choose to remain ignorant. We know of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was kidnapped by the CIA, detained for eight months and illegally tortured during that time -- only to be returned because they finally figured out he didn't know anything at all about terrorist plots.

And yes, he wasn't even a terror suspect, you idget.

We know that something like 60% of the inmates at Guantanamo have been freed over the years BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T GUILTY OF ANYTHING!!! There is no slippery slope, we've been sitting in the pit at the bottom of the slope for years abusing and terrorizing and jailing and torturing people who are innocent, victims of mistaken identity and poor police work and a refusal to allow people the benefit of a basic legal process to determine their innocence or guilt.

Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with terrorist rights and has everything to do with human rights. You're only guilty of something if there's a trial and evidence to show that you're guilty. The Bush administration is arguing that they don't need evidence or trial to prove someone's guilt, they only need Bush's say so.

That pattern has preceded the rise of every dictatorship and abusive regime, because eventually it's used arbitrarily to silence one's critics.

ex-liberal, wake up. Quit worrying about trying to win arguments on this blog and focus on what is really going on.

i suspect bush/cheney et al picked a fight with the armed services committee and negotiated a deal with the "military senators" (warner/mccain/grahm)to set the stage for the real battle

the real battle being with arlen spector and the judiciary commitee

having fueled the news cycle for over a week on torture and military courts they think they have drained the air out of the issue and made it immensely more difficult for the judiciary committee to oppose them with vigor

by the time the bills get to a vote the opposition will have been bowled over

Sorry, I posted an incomplete message. As I was saying:

One thing is certain: we can't win the public relations war by being nice. Al Qaeda's entire campaign is based on being as cruel as possible. E.g., it was al Qaeda who blew up that important al-Askari shrine in Samarra. Anyone who cares about the welfare of Muslims should be on our side. Nothing the US has done is remotely as cruel as what al Qaeda does.

Those who understand the urgency of winnng the hearts and minds of Muslims ought to understand how important it is not to slander the US. Yet, some of them go out of their way to malign the US. E.g., the New York Times made al Qaeda out to be far worse than it actually was. John Murtha promulgated lies of a US troop massacre of civilians, before the facts were in.

People and institutions who go out of their way to make the US look worse than it is are contributing to our losing the public relations war to al Qaeda. I don't know why they do this, but they deserve the utmost contempt.

In this festive election season Republicans will troll the blogs posing as enraged Democrats to rally sincere liberals behind a cause whose TIMING is not in their best interest. They saw the power of the blogosphere with the ousting of Lieberman and would like to harness it to push liberals in ill-fated causes. Remember gay marriage? It is not just red meat for traditionalists, it is about picking a fight between two groups and calculating you get 51%.

Republicans accusing others of defeatism is pretty rich. Republicans start out defeated. They can't do anything at all without cheating. They can't fight a war without cheating. They can't have an election without cheating. They can't run a business without cheating.

Because they'd never win otherwise. They'd even fail at being gangsters. Think of them in Tony Soprano's world, what would they do? They'd join the cops.

The Republican personality is fraud and failure.

"POSTSCRIPT: And how about the Democrats? Will they fight this?" - Kevin

Democrats fight?

"We'll have to wait and see, but their performance has been pretty uninspiring so far." - Kevin

You could say that about everything the Democrats do.

Vice President Cheney says that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq supports the terrorists.
61 percent of the US population opposes the war, according to CNN. That's a lot of detainees and habeas corpus petitions to deny.

Knowing the Republicans, they probably haven't budgeted adequately for the aftermath of their own legislation.

I'm an enraged Democrat. Are you accusing me of being an imposter?

The left is wrong as a matter or policy. They're also polically wrong, and morally wrong.

Really? You want want to take up your argument with former Pope John Paul II, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the scores of other religious leaders around the world who argued that the "pre-emptive" war in Iraq was immoral, including the head of George Bush's own church:

Bush's Own Church Has Called For The Withdrawal Of Troops From Iraq

From The United Methodist Church

United Methodist Church leaders helped launch a week of protest and civil disobedience against the war in Iraq by signing a declaration of peace in the capital, urging President Bush to pull US troops out of the country.

The Declaration of Peace, signed on 21 September 2006, is described as a call for nonviolent action to end the war in Iraq. The Washington DC event was one of 350 staged nationwide to promote the peace initiative.

More than 500 groups, almost half of them faith organizations, are involved in the declaration of peace effort, which recently retired Bishop Susan Morrison said includes "acts of moral witness to seek a new course for our country."

By signing the peace document in front of the White House, the United Methodists and other protesters also hope to influence congressional races in November 2006 by forcing candidates to outline where they stand on the war.

Jim Winkler, top executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, said that protesting the war is similar to the church's work to promote other social movements. The church took prophetic positions on civil rights, women's rights and nuclear disarmament before Congress acted, he noted.

http://www.evangelicalright.com/2006/09/bushs_own_church_has_called_fo_1.html

What the American voters do is immaterial. The American empire is sinking under its own weight while the world laughs. That is all that matters, not the results of some stupid rigged elections in November.

Clearly the Repubs will do what they have to do to retain power, because the alternative -- being forced to live with the responsibility for failure -- is unthinkable.

But it doesn't matter, because the world is moving on from us. As ownership and protection of the world's energy resources turns from us to other countries, as medical research originates in other countries, as the brain drain continues, as more of our soldiers are recruited from the absolute bottom ranges of the IQ scale, etc., nature and Darwinism will take their courses as they always do.

"One thing is certain: we can't win the public relations war by being nice. Al Qaeda's entire campaign is based on being as cruel as possible."

-exliberal

So you mean the terrorists have won?

we can't win the public relations war by being nice. Al Qaeda's entire campaign is based on being as cruel as possible.

That clinches it. Ex-liberal is a terrorist operative actively urging and encouraging our government to quicken the downfall of Western civilization.

John Murtha promulgated lies of a US troop massacre of civilians, before the facts were in.

No, Iraqis at the scene SAID that the Marines committed the massacre. The image of the U.S. in Muslim minds is tarnished by ignoring the accusations of the locals. BY INVESTIGATING THESE CHARGES WE SHOW THAT WE ARE FOR LAW AND ORDER, and not casual about slaughtering Iraqis.

This shows our moral accountability for our actions when we screw up, and gives lie to the widely held belief that we are cruelly indifferent to Muslims.

Something like half the Iraqis polled still say that attacks on U.S. troops are justified. This has nothing to do with Murtha or the NYT. When you ASK the Iraqis why this is, they say it's because we are an occupying power, we've blown their country to shit, and first and foremost -- almost everyone has a relative or a friend that's been killed by the violence that the U.S. instigated by invading.

"....because the alternative -- being forced to live with the responsibility for failure -- is unthinkable." - Jimmy

Actually, it's living under Democrat control which is unthinkable.

"As ownership and protection of the world's energy resources turns from us to other countries, as medical research originates in other countries, as the brain drain continues, as more of our soldiers are recruited from the absolute bottom ranges of the IQ scale, etc., nature and Darwinism will take their courses as they always do." - Jimmy

Jimmy is a fine example of Democratic optimism and that American "can do" attitude.

No wonder you guys win elections...........oh wait. Nevermind.

the New York Times made al Qaeda out to be far worse than it actually was.

Huh? George Bush is the one who has elevated a bunch of ragtag cave dwellers to the level of rock stars. "They are worse than Nazi Germany, Greatest Threat to Civilization Ever. We must chuck out all that we have ever stood for both morally and ethically! They want to create a Caliphate!! A Caliphate I tell ya!!"

What the republicans are trying to do essentially renders the Constitution null and void. Any provision can be violated and any manner of heinous crime committed by the president and executive branch with immunity. All they have to do is get their republican legislators to pass legislation that grants retroactive immunity. And the current republican legislators are not known for their ability to stand up for the Constitution.

A republican president violates the law and ha