Once it became clear that Cornyn wanted a blanket amnesty for a specific handful of people who have not actually been charged with any crimes, the charade became unworkable.

Anyone found a Republican who puts country above party yet?

The Republicans are worried about the fact that a well-known synonym for "Republican" is "defendant."

The Republicans are worried about the fact that a well-known synonym for "Republican" is "defendant."
Posted by: TCinLA@0140

Actually, the synonym is "Fugitive from Justice."

But I digress, Hilzoy. The real question on my plate---and it's been there for quite a while---is in line with your comment, thus:

Officials also face a February deadline on whether to extend habeas corpus rights to detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

Why in the gods' names wait until the deadline? I cannot think of a more magnanimous and humane gesture on the part of these United States than to offer immediate Habeas to anyone detained by us. Take it one step further by making it the law, and the evils committed by the Bushylvanians in our names---yours, mine, and everyone else's in this country---will become that more difficult to commit, that much easier to expose, and that much more important to prosecute. So what if it'll cost more? We're drowning in lawyers already; let's make some of them judges and build a complete "federal" city around them!

Please do not forget to make the signing statements null and void.

Also,we still need to see the visitor's logs from the White House the Bush administration saw fit to keep from us.

Here's a nice line from the LAT story that shows just how corruptly Orwellian the media has become:

Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits.

Wrong. Obama has said nothing about outlawing "harsh interrogation techniques." Being detained by the U.S. government isn't suddenly going to become a gentle, happy experience. One assumes that detainees will be treated at least as "harshly" as, say, a burglary suspect is.

Obama has promised that detainees won't be tortured. Even now, the media refuses to acknowledge that there is a difference between harsh treatment and torture.

"I don't really understand the point of delaying a nomination that is obviously going to pass, especially not when the Justice Department has a lot on its plate:"

That is just the point. The longer they can delay the longer before they face legal scrutiny. They don't want the Justice Department to get anything accomplished.

Also, the comment about signing statements. Is there any reason to believe that they haven't always been null and void? Have the courts ever ruled on it? Has Bush ever used his signing statements to circumvent a law or has he just put them out there and let them sit for possible future use? He can SAY anything he wants, but as long as he didn't actually DO anything, you can't get him for it.

Good Day!!! www.washingtonmonthly.com is one of the most outstanding informational websites of its kind. I take advantage of reading it every day. Keep it that way.