I'm happy to hear people in Oz are reading my blog.

and your numbers are misleading. 400 american prisoners out of 2 million each year commit suicide.

in gitmo there are 4 suicides out of a few hundred. and you didnt mention the hunger strikes.

also, if gitmo isn't so bad, why arent any human rights groups allowed there?

oh.. one last thing. the australian man who was at gitmo.. did you read his story? about how he was brutally beaten, and how he was raped by a plastic object?

ok lets close gitmo and just kill every terrerast we catch it would cost us less

I see you are willing to take the claims of terrorists at face value, Chris. I guess we should be thankful that they aren't in real estate, or they could finance their operations for the next decade off all the bridges they could sell you.

The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of claims made by captured terrorists turned out to be false, something else you either forget to mention, or simply don't care to acknowledge.

I notice that you are willing to take their hunger strikes as being very important for some reason. Do you mind telling us exactly what? Paris Hilton apparently tried that route as well. I guess we should set her and them free.

And I notice you aren't willing to back down on your gulag claim, even though it is clearly offensive to those who have even a limited understanding of what actually went on in the gulags. I guess your gross exaggeration is "truthy enough."

Bob,

There are plenty of problems with Gitmo. The big one is that we haven't tried any of those people and yet we've held some of them for more than 5 years.

I know you're response will be that these people are enemy combatants. If that's true, and we are at war, then these people are POWs and fall under certain rules, including being seen by the Red Cross or Red Crescent.

If they aren't POWs then they're criminals and have certain rights as well.

The reason we have these protections is not to protect the terrorists, but to protect you and me from a despotic government. Because if our government can sweep up two writers whose only crime was telling a Clinton joke, and hold them indefinitely, then they can do the same to you and me.

I trust that these people are dangerous and that the majority should not be let out, but they should have some legal rights. Not for them, but for us.

We're setting a dangerous precedent in Gitmo and it's one that should give every freedom-loving person pause.

Hunger strikes or diets? Didn't I read they were averaging about a 20lb weight gain each?

Contrast that with genuine abuse -- the way the Japanese treated allied prisoners during WWII. I think you'd be very hard pressed to produce even a single allied prisoner who exhibited a weight gain of even one pound while in captivity.

call it whatever you want, whether you want to call it a gulag, or a concentration camp, or whatever you choose, gitmo is illegal.

there is lots of evidence of torture not only at gitmo but the secret cia prisons in europe and the prisons in iraq.

why is it that respected people like colin powell want gitmo closed down immediately?

do you support torture? we used to be america, the shining beacon of the world. now we torture POWs, hold them in secret prisons, and much worse that we dont even know about yet.

Execute the ones we have in accordance with the Geneva Conventions (not in uniform or members of an army).
Close Gitmo.
Execute the rest of the terrorists as we catch them if they are armed or committing crimes.
End of story.

The big one is that we haven't tried any of those people

Q: How many German and Japanese POW's and war criminals were tried during the war?

PA,

The point is not whether you try POWs. You don't. The point is that they're either POWs or they're criminal defendants. Whichever, they have certain rights and expectations of treatment.

We didn't codify torture when faced with Japan or Germany, but we have now. To me, that's shameful.

You may hold us to the barbaric standards of WWII Japan or today's terrorists, but I hold us to a higher standard, one set down by law.

Does anybody care that the Red Cross has an office at Gitmo, and they say the conditions have vastly improved? I guess not. Why dont we just make it better, instead of closing it down. You guys don't seem to care about that, its just "close it down", "its bad".

One more question: Chris, have you been to Gitmo, or are you passing judgement on something without having all the facts?

The point is that they're either POWs or they're criminal defendants.

Q: If they're criminal defendants, what US civil court has jurisdiction over events that happened in a foreign country?

Think twice before answering this, and consider what the implications of some OTHER COUNTRY applying the same notion reciprocally to US citizens here in the USA.

We live in a "democracy" wherein the President claims the power to declare anyone he wants an "enemy combatant" and imprison him or her forever, with no recourse to courts or trials or anything that resembles a judicial system.

And "patriots" defend this.

Of course, the term "patriot" is used very loosely here, since the "patriot" in question celebrates the heritage of the only organized rebellion against the United States Government--a rebellion mounted to defend an economic system that was based on owning human beings.

I suppose it's no surprise that someone who believes that it was morally courageous to fight for the right to think of other human beings as property should think that locking up people on the word of one man is acceptable.

David Terrenoire-- actually, by the Gen. Convention, they're illegal combatants, not POWs. They did not wear uniforms, they did not follow the laws of war, and many are not members of Gen. Convent. signing organizations.

To say they are either POWS or criminals is a false dichotomy-- they are illegal combatants, a designation clearly defined long, long ago. They forfeited their chance to be honorable POWs.

Also-- since when is killing oneself or choosing not to eat the fault of anyone but the chooser?

Does anyone else notice that the "humanitarian" groups are hugely biased?

Mr. Scott-- are you trying to look foolish? People who are in the middle of people shooting at us are probably enemies who are fighting, AKA, enemy combatant.

If you really think that the eeeeeevil Bush is going along, randomly grabbing folks and saying "You're an enemy combatant! You're an enemy cobatant! Put down the baby, you're an enemy combatant!"..... come on.

Of course, the term "patriot" is used very loosely here, since the "patriot" in question celebrates the heritage of the only organized rebellion against the United States Government--a rebellion mounted to defend an economic system that was based on owning human beings.

Need to brush up a bit on your history there, yippy.

The 1898 Wilmington Riot was the only successful coup d'etat in American history, where the North Carolina Democratic Party, in league with the News & Observer newspaper, overthrew the duly elected Republican government of Wilmington North Carolina , killing dozens in the process.

Other than, that, enjoy your sanctimony, if that what turns you on.

Mr. Scott has never read the Geneva convention and its definitions, or he wouldn't be embarrassing himself in this manner.

Purple Avenger- I think you're right. I haven't had the chance to read the whole thing, but as a professional matter-- I was in the Navy-- I made sure to become familiar with what applied to my job. Which is just about everything to do with war, combatant status, terrorism and lawful war making.

I was in the Navy-- I made sure to become familiar with what applied to my job. Which is just about everything to do with war, combatant status, terrorism and lawful war making.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 11, 2007 10:45 PM

Oh yeah? Then you are one illiterate retard, let me clue you and the other moron "humanitarians" here in.

As a member of the U.S. Armed forces:

1. My country is a signatory of the geneva conventions, what country's armed forces are the AQ terrorists in GITMO members of?

2. I follow the rules of land warfare, show one example of AQ doing this just one will do.

3. I carry a Geneva conventions ID card, AQ terrorists do not.

4. I wear a uniform when engaged in combat, AQ does not.

5. I carry arms openly and do not use civilian populations to hide in, AQ does not carry arms openly and they hide among the civilians.

6. I avoid causing civilian casualties with all due diligance even to the point of putting my own life in danger. AQ purposely targets civilians.

As a member of the armed forces of the United States I find it deeply offensive that anyone in this country would put AQ terrorists on the same legal basis as an American service member, as for the notion that the Geneva conventions are to protect us from a despotic Government is BS they are there to protect civilians in war zones and by giving the AQ terrorists a pass you invalidate those same conventions and encourage them to continue murdering innocent people.
Yes you are certainly right we did not treat the Japanese or German illegal combatants this way instead we hung them or shot them their choice.

The scum in GITMO are illegal combatants and have no protections under the Geneva conventions nor the U.S. constitution THEY ARE NOT CRIMINALS NOR POW'S!

And by the way show me the proof that we have tortured anyone come on just one little itsy bitsy bit of proof!

And by the way, if you want to see what torture "really" is I suggest you google the words "Al Qieda torture manual" look at the pictures now that is torture! You friggin morons!

Old Crow, I linked manual and provided some images form it here.

WARNING: Not for the faint of heart, or for those who don't want to know what true torture actually is.

"I see you are willing to take the claims of terrorists at face value, Chris."

Erm. Isn't that "Alleged terrorists". Besides, we have claims from several people who were released without charge who also go along with these claims. I suppose that it is possible that, while in Gitmo, they were exposed to enough propeganda that they went along with the claims of mistreatment.

As for comparisons of the treatment of Gitmo detainees with POWs from previous wars, fine, give them POW status. Or try them in civilian courts.

Creating a new legal category and then filling in the blanks is simply not the way to go about this.

Though, honestly, it makes very little difference what is gone about Gitmo now. People's opinions are already formed. Closing it would confirm people's prejudices to them. Those in favour would accuse liberal lefties of undermining security, those against would still complain about the fact that it happened even though it had stopped.

The only advantage to closing it would be that the people there (some almost certainly innocent of any meaningful crime) would get some sort of justice.

Old Crow,

Calling people morons says more about you than it does about the other commenter.

This is a legitimate debate, carried on right now in the highest levels of government, grappling with the definition of enemy combatant; whether they are covered by the Geneva Accords; whether they are warriors or criminals or a third group entirely; how much power the executive should have; and what protections, if any, should the accused have, some of whom have been deemed innocent after years of detention and set free.

To say, as Old Crow does, that AQ does far worse than we do, something no one here will argue, is irrelevant. We are not debating AQ's conduct. We are debating our conduct as the government acts in our name.

This is why we have laws and why laws are created after debate. These are serious issues, not something that can be condensed into some Jack Bauer vs the Terrorist hypothetical.

The most recent Supreme Court ruling found that enemy combatants are protected by the Geneva Conventions, and the authorization to use force given to Bush by Congress does not give him the authority to create new tribunals but leaves that power with Congress.

In Breyer's concurrence, he emphasized that nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary and Kennedy thought that that the administration's tribunal plans violated military law.

Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented. their arguments said that the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005 establishes legislative parameters for Bush's tribunals. Thomas went farthest in his dissent saying that the Supreme Court should tread carefully in military matters and that enemy combatants are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Alito said the Bush administration's tribunal plans are consistent with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and that there "is nothing in it to prevent a person presumed to be guilty from being arrested and so placed in a position where he can do no further harm..."

But the majority ruled that these prisoners are are protected by the Geneva Conventions and that indefinite detention, mild torture, and extraordinary rendition are illegal.

You can disagree with their findings. I certainly don't go along with every Supreme Court decision (one in particular I could mention, but won't), but the reason I bring this up is to show that smart people, educated people, have spent many days thinking and arguing about these issues and whether you come down on the administration's side or the other side, there are potent arguments for each.

To me, wherever you land, that doesn't necessarily make you a moron. So let's try to elevate this debate beyong schoolyard chest-thumping. Because, frankly, being a badass on a blog is the easiest thing in the world to do.

No new legal catagory has been created they were called illegal combatants during WWII also, before that they were referred to as spies or sabatuers, these so called people at GITMO were captured on the battle field, they are not POW's nor criminals and deserve no legal protections if they do fine give them the treatment the Geneva conventions call for put them up against a wall and shoot them dead.

This from The American spectator
Special Report
Real Torture
By Jeff Emanuel
Published 6/12/2007 12:08:27 AM
On May 12, near the Sunni stronghold of Yusufiya, Iraq (about 15 miles south of Baghdad), al Qaeda fighters ambushed a coalition patrol, killing four soldiers and abducting three, all from the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment of the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team (based at Fort Drum, New York).

Despite warnings from al Qaeda "not to look for the soldiers if [they] wanted them back alive," American and Iraqi forces mobilized almost 4,000 troops to conduct a search for the missing men. The force spent much of the next weeks searching the area around Mahmoudiya, in the much-publicized "Triangle of Death." Though they questioned over 450 people and detained 11 as a part of the probe, the soldiers were, unfortunately, not successfully recovered.

On the morning of Wednesday, May 23, Hassan al-Jibouri, an Iraqi boater, saw a body floating in the Euphrates River. It had "head wounds and whip marks on its back," said al-Jibouri, who alerted police about the discovery. Before the day was over, the body had been identified as being one of the three missing soldiers, PFC Joe Anzack, a 20-year-old from California.

Do you get it yet numbnuts? These so called people do not observe the laws of war they do not have any rights under the Geneva conventions!

Some of you people are turning the Geneva convention on it's head. It was to apply to real, legal combattants which are described below. By your reasoning, all a soldier has to do is remove his uniform, not meet the requirements of the convention, and he has better protection than a soldier in uniform, i.e. access to civilian courts.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

cw, look at this again:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

This could easily define Al Sadr's militia and some units of AQ. The only questionable points are b and d. But certain units of AQ and the mujahadeen wear very distinctive clothes, recognizable at a distance.

As for d. our president claims under the the theory of the unitary executive that he is the only person who can define the laws and customs of war, regardless of international law.

By unmooring these laws and customs from established international law, he opens up these terms to be defined by anyone claiming executive authority, even Bin Laden. And that makes those rules useless.

Can you see how dangerous this course is?

So, going by what you've posted, it can be argued that the insurgents do conform to section 2 and are then worthy of POW status.

My GOD you really are clueless or just plain stupid, personnaly I think you are both. Well that's it why bother you obviously don't care about what the fact's are so as Mark Twain once said "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it just annoys the pig and wastes your time!".

Guys,

Please debate the issues, and stop the personal attacks.

Oh no, how will I ever recover from such insightful and pointed criticism? I'm devastated by your wit and cogent grasp of the facts.

An anonymous commenter on a blog has called me clueless and stupid!

I guess I'll just slink away, humiliated by your obvious intelligence and superior strength.

/sarcasm

Oh, and it's spelled personally, not personnaly. Just sayin.'

Sorry Bob.

It won't happen again.

And I still say that you are turning the convention on it's head, by not conforming to definition the combattant is purposly making the issue fuzzy. The GC may apply to Al-Sadr but are any of them in Gitmo? If you are captured on the battlefield fighting US soldiers and are not following the rules set out, including following the rules of war what are you? Also, the other party must be a party to the convention or if they accept and apply the provisions. Don't think beheadings, electril drills in your knee meet the provisions, therefore, they are not eligible even if they meet the definitions, which the don't. As for Bush deciding about the rules of war, using the civilian population as shields, physical torture (drills, blow torches, etc), summary exectution would not meet anyone's definition of rules of war
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

OK. This actually seems a lot simpler than it sounds. The Geneva convention is clear about prisoner status and it seems obvious that the Gitmo detainees are not POWs.

"Nonprivileged or unlawful combatants may be charged with criminal offenses arising out of their participation in the armed conflict/armed activity, because they are not entitled to the immunity that is often called the "combatant's privilege." Like POWs, they can also be charged with committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and common crimes. or other serious offenses. While nonprivileged combatants are not entitled to the extensive trial rights of POWs under the Third Geneva Convention, they are entitled to a "fair and regular trial" and the trial protections provided by the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is a fundamental provisions of the Geneva Conventions that all detainees are entitled to "all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." Nonprivileged combatants are entitled to trial before a "properly constituted, non-political military court," to be informed of the charges against them, to present their defense and call witnesses, to be assisted by qualified counsel of their own choice, to have an interpreter, and to mount an appeal against the conviction and sentence. As an exceptional measure, trials may be held in camera if the security of the state so requires."

To repeat the relevant point, "It is a fundamental provisions of the Geneva Conventions that all detainees are entitled to "all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." "

I would say that Habeus Corpus, the right to see evidence against yourself and to rebutt that evidence, standard prisoner rights (no enhanced interrogation methods for example) and a timely trial would be basic parts of what we recognise as indispensable.

Any system that imprisons people for 5 years without trail surely can't fulfil these Geneva requirements.

CW,

Fighters with the Taliban certainly fit the convention category, and some of them are in Gitmo.

The real problem here is the creation of another category of combatant. I'm OK with that, but I want some protections for the innocent and I want it done by legislation, not defined by the whims of George Bush or any other president. That's too much power for anyone.

As for Bush deciding what the rules of war are, our methods of interrogation are classified so how do we know if they fall within the confines of the Geneva Conventions?

I want the rule of law and I want some sunshine in government. I don't think that's asking too much.

OldCrow-- are you really that stupid? That's not an insult, that is a serious question based on your response to *my* writing.

BECAUSE they are terrorists, not members of any country's military, they can't be Lawful Comb./POWs. BECAUSE they do not follow the laws of war, they are not LC/POWs. BECAUSE they do not carry Gen. IDs, they cannot be LC/POWs.... yeah, carry that ad nausium.

Reading comprehension FTW, jerk. I don't want someone like you on my "side", if they read black, and respond "F*ing white, go to hell!" Take your insults and your utter lack of understanding and go away.

Foxfier,
I apologize, the knuckle heads who support these terrorists and then have the cajones to say they have more legal rights than me got me seeing red big time, I really do apologize for the blue on blue fire forgive me.

Yeah, CW, stop the personal attacks, "yippy."

And please read carefully: "WIlmington, NC" is not the "United States Government." The insurrection that lead to war between the Confederate States and the United States remains the only organized rebellion against the *Federal* government.

I'll match my knowledge of history--and my reading comprehension--against yours any time.

The somewhat predictable thinking on this thread--they're all dirty terrorists so screw 'em--ignores three important issues--which I should think conservatives and patriots would care more about (and would, if Hillary were President).

First, George W. Bush claims the power to designate--without any process or review of any sort--any human being he wishes (even US citizens) as illegal combatants. He does not base this on Geneva Conventions or the Law of War (both of which I have read, by the way), but on his own inherent power as Commander in Chief. Using this argument, he declared US citizen Jose Padilla an enemy combatant, even though he was not captured on a battlefield and was not a "soldier" in any meaningful sense. If EC is defined as "committing a violent crime for political reasons," then the cohort of people subject to indefinite incarceration becomes quite broad. This is the sort of assertion made by dictators, especially when the government begins to associate dissent from its policies with treason, which the Bush Administration routinely does.

Second, he uses this authority to imprison people without giving them access to judicial processes or presenting evidence that they fit his designation or that they are, indeed, terrorists or enemies of the US. Think carefully about this, because it is crucial:

The only criteria for EC designation and imprisonment for life without due process is one man's word!

Since the government cuts these people off from everyone, including lawyers and family, no one knows under what circumstances they were arrested or captured, or whether they are in fact guilty of anything. It is a short jump from rounding up 'terrorists' to rounding up other 'enemies,' such as peace protesters. Since one man's word is sufficient, it is impossible to know whether he uses the power arbitrarily, and it enables a relatively small group of people to "disappear" their political enemies--since they are isolated, no one ever knows just why a particular prisoner is there.

Very few of the people imprisoned at Gitmo are, in fact terrorists or AQ members. Most were handed over by Afghan or Iraqi tribal warlords in order to collect rewards from the US government. They used this to settle local feuds and eliminate family or political enemies. Their crimes, if any, were probably committed against each other.

Finally, our government today operates several concentration camps in other countries (and perhaps here, for all we know) where they hold people they they think are dangerous (and remember, one single person claims the power to define "dangerous"). Many of them are just regular citizens who happened to know someone who participated in some activity. We don't really know how many of these there are, or who is in them, but we do know that they exist, and that the Constitution no where gives our government the power to do this. It witholds this power for a reason: it is the most basic components of totalitarianism.

For a bunch of people who believe that the Second is the most important of the first ten amendments--since we citizens need guns to keep our government democratic--you all seem remarkably complacent about these totalitarian trends. Our government is putting in place the necessary components of citizen repression, and all they lack is a broader definition of "enemy." You may all be too sick with Bush Worship Syndrome to think he can do any wrong, but if you don't believe that an American Government could do such a thing, what do you need the Second Amendment for?

Scott- Where has this claim, from the Prez, that he can make anyone an illegal combatant? You've said this four or five times and no link.

*I* think that the US citizens who are caught fighting against us should become *former* US citizens in quick order-- I'm sorry, but if you join a foreign terrorist group to attack the US abroad, why not go whole horse and offically renounce your citizenship? Or have it done for you.

Surely you don't seriously believe that I just made up such a charge out of whole cloth.

OK, here we go. First, here is the executive order Bush signed claiming the power to detain aliens upon his own determination that they meet certain criteria. It contains provisions for military commissions, but none for judicial review or for mandating that military commissions actually meet and try detainees.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html

Next, here are two articles from CATO (so very liberal!) pointing out that Bush has attempted to claim the same power over citizens, and laying out the dangers to our civil liberties this policy presents.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-09-04-2.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-09-04-2.html

Finally, here is the decision of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals (Jane Fonda wannabees!) in the al-Marri v. Berman case: http://natseclaw.typepad.com/natseclaw/files/4th_circuit_decision.pdf

These very conservative judges point out that the government "maintains that the President has both the constitutional and statutory authority to subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention, and in any event, that a new statute--enacted years after al-Marri's siezure--strips federal courts of jurisdiction even to consider his habeas petition." (Page 5) They go on to state that "For a court to uphold such an extraordinary power ["to sieze and indefinitely detain civilians"] would do more than render lifeless the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the rights to criminal process in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments; it would effectively undermine all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution." (Pages 76-77)

George Bush, through executive orders and by directing his justice department's arguments in federal court, has claimed the power to detain anyone he designates as an enemy combatant indefinitely. Courts have told him "NO!" three times.

Take off the Bush Worship Syndrome blinders and look around you at what your government is doing. Perhaps you like the idea of an authoritarian government, as long as it locks up people you don't like. And if you are willing to trade your freedom for safety, just say so. I'm not.

If I thought you were making it up out of whole cloth, I'd just call you a liar. Moreover, I'd call you stupid, which I doubt.

However, you have not shown where Bush claims he can make anyone an enemy combatant. You have shown where he authorizes foreign terrorists to be treated as such, and you've got several folks guessing on what may go next.

That is NOT "George W. Bush claims the power to designate--without any process or review of any sort--any human being he wishes (even US citizens) as illegal combatants" as you claimed.

Please provide actual proof of the President claiming this, especially as the first link-- the only one actually from the President, I may add-- specifically says The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen who fits in the listed categories.

I don't care what someone else thinks the Prez may do-- I care that you are claiming he has said things and cannot give proof when asked. I don't care what a court has said-- for crying out loud, courts say all sorts of things.

Show me where George W. Bush actually claims "the power to declare anyone he wants an "enemy combatant" and imprison him or her forever."

If you can't, but keep claiming it, THEN I'll call you a liar.

The best evidence that George Bush claims this power is that he has exercised it. Further, he he has twice attempted to do so against American citizens, the text of his order notwithstanding. When challenged, he directed the Justice Department to argue that he has this power in court. Yet this is not enough evidence that we may have a civil liberties problem. Huh?

Saying this is not enough is a bit like saying that playing golf once a week is not evidence that I like golf, and since I have never publicly announced that I do, I probably don't.

Is this what passes for analytical thought around here?

Scott, that is your *interpretation* of his actions.

You are flatly wrong.

For that matter, your example stinks-- to correct it, you'd have to say that "it's a bit like saying that I haven't said I like golf, although I have played it twice weekly"-- it's called a red herring. You're diverting the subject from the claimed accusation-- that he's *claimed* he can do something-- to the related but irrelevant subject of what you believe he thinks.

Insert the word *seems* and you are alright, but you are claiming he actually *said* something he did not. That is lying. Are you still going to stick with that assertion?

For that matter, I'd consider folks who conspire to attack the US traitors, and given that it's a time of war, *I* would use the traditional response. Be glad it's not me in charge.