I liked this G. Keillor column ....

[billhammond]

I would not send my college kid off for a semester abroad if I
were you.

Last week, we suspended human rights in America, and what goes around comes around. Ixnay habeas corpus.

The U.S. Senate, in all its splendor and majesty, has decided
that an "enemy combatant" is any noncitizen whom the president says is an enemy combatant, including your Korean greengrocer or your Swedish grandmother or your Czech au pair, and can be arrested and held for as long as authorities wish without any right of appeal to a court of law to examine the matter. If your college kid were to be arrested in Bangkok or Cairo, suspected of "crimes against the state," and held in prison, you'd assume that an American foreign service officer would be able to speak to your kid and arrange for a lawyer, but this may not be true anymore. Be forewarned.

The Senate also decided it's up to the president to decide
whether it's OK to make these enemies stand naked in cold rooms for a couple days in blinding light and be beaten by interrogators.


This is now purely a bureaucratic matter: The plenipotentiary
stamps the file "enemy combatants" and throws the poor schnooks into prison and at his leisure he tries them by any sort of kangaroo court he wishes to assemble and they have no right to see the evidence against them, and there is no appeal. This was passed by 65 senators and will now be signed by Mr. Bush, put into effect, and in due course be thrown out by the courts. It's good that Barry Goldwater is dead because this would have
killed him.

Go back to the Senate of 1964 - Goldwater, Dirksen,
Russell, McCarthy, Javits, Morse, Fulbright - and you won't find more than 10 votes for it. None of the men and women who voted for this bill has any right to speak in public about the rule of law anymore, or to take a high moral view of the Third Reich, or to wax poetic about the American Idea. Mark their names. Any institution of higher learning that grants honorary degrees to these people forfeits its honor.


Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Burr, Carper, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, DeMint, DeWine, Dole, Domenici, Ensign, Enzi, Frist, Graham, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Johnson, Kyl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Lott, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, McConnell, Menendez, Murkowski, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Pryor, Roberts, Rockefeller, Salazar, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Sununu, Talent, Thomas, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner.

To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott: Mark their names and mark them well. For them, no minstrel raptures swell. High though their
titles, proud their name, boundless their wealth as wish can claim, these wretched figures shall go down to the vile dust from whence they sprung, unwept, unhonored and unsung. Three Republican senators made a show of opposing the bill and
after they'd collected all the praise they could get, they quickly
folded. Why be a hero when you can be fairly sure that the court
will dispose of this piece of garbage.

If, however, the court does not, then our country has taken a
step toward totalitarianism. If the government can round up someone and never be required to explain why, then it's no longer the United States of America as you and I always understood it. Our enemies have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They have made us become like them.

I got some insight last week into who supports torture when I
went down to Dallas to speak at Highland Park Methodist Church. It was spooky. I walked in, was met by two burly security men with walkie-talkies, and within 10 minutes was told by three people that this was the Bushes' church and that it would be better if I didn't talk about politics. I was there on a book tour for "Homegrown Democrat," but they thought it better if I didn't mention it. So I tried to make light of it: I told the audience, "I don't need to talk politics. I have no need even to be interested in politics -- I'm a citizen, I have plenty of money and my grandsons are at least 12 years away from being eligible for military service." And the audience applauded! Those were their sentiments exactly. We've got ours, and who cares?

The Methodists of Dallas can be fairly sure that none of them
will be snatched off the streets, flown to Guantanamo, stripped
naked, forced to stand for 48 hours in a freezing room with
deafening noise, so why should they worry? It's only the Jews who are in danger, and the homosexuals and Gypsies. The Christians are doing just fine. If you can't trust a Methodist with absolute power to arrest people and not have to say why, then whom can you trust?

[AlanC]

My 15 year old was invited to participate in the "People to People" program started by Pres. Ike (cant spell the whole thing). It is a program to chaperone high school kids into various countries. The one she applied for would be Spain, France, and Italy. It will really suck to find out she can't go because it's not reasonably safe.

[Cornflake]

I like the column too, though I deplore the developments that gave rise to it. I don't understand why people aren't coming out of their chairs with indignation.

[Russell Letson]

I liked the column, too--GK writes a mean stick, even if the no-semester-abroad stuff is a bit over the top. As troubling and ugly as the Bush takes on enemies and torture are, I'm just as bothered by the warnings GK says he got in Dallas--watch what you say, don't annoy the Beloved Leader or his fans. (The remark about the security guys is a bit cheap, though I guess the Secret Service does now enforce the Free Speech [Containment] Zone protocols.)

[ducktrapper]

Now I know why I've never cared for Keillor. Ha ha. I got news for him though, it's been that way for Americans in those countries for a while now. Including neighborly Mexico. Long before Bush. Keillor prefers to defend the joker cutting off his head against this? He hasn't lost freedom 1, yet. Can I say what a maroon?

Quote - The Methodists of Dallas can be fairly sure that none of them
will be snatched off the streets, flown to Guantanamo, stripped
naked, forced to stand for 48 hours in a freezing room with
deafening noise, so why should they worry? It's only the Jews who are in danger, and the homosexuals and Gypsies. The Christians are doing just fine. If you can't trust a Methodist with absolute power to arrest people and not have to say why, then whom can you trust? end quote

Well sure and a jihadist in Tehran or Damascus also has no such worry though I'd hate to be a Christian in Iraq, Syria or Iran but what IS the point? Is he saying that these arseholes should each get to do a Moussaoui in a US court? Should have shot them all on the spot which would have been perfectly legal according to the Geneva Conventions the way I read them. Sheesh.

[Cosmic Wonder]

I'm pretty sure that when Jesus said to love your enemies he didn't mean it was ok to imprison and torture them.

And Duck, imhop that the excuse that the other guys did it first is a pretty lame one.
MIke

[TDR]

I don't share his confidence the court will overturn the law. If he means the US Supreme Court, lets not forget that is the same august body that stopped the Florida recounts and defacto appointed this president.

Followed by two Bush appointments to the court. I suspect we are likelier to see more abandoning of habeus corpus and more revocation of due process before we see the Supremes step in and reverse the will of this president and the Senate.

[mnhermit]

I may not always agree with GK's opinions but he does a good job pointing out that 'conservative' doesn't mean what it used to. I also appreciate him naming the Senators that voted to abrogate their responsibility a nd allow the executive branch carte blanche. Where are the checks and balances? The only ones I see are the voters chucking the bums out for making our country more like our enemies.

It makes me sad to see our elected reps volunteering away power to the executive branch simply because it's expediant. Under this bill where is there any check on what is considered an 'enemy combatant' ? How capricious could that definition become?

Thanks for posting the article Bill.

[ducktrapper]

Oh, torture my butt! I was treated worse in school. The schoolyard? Let's not even go there.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_he_me/guantanamo_fat_detainees

Since when is the other guy did it first lame, btw, when it comes to being attacked? So if you don't believe in self defence, you do what? Take him to court? That should do the lawyers a world of good but what it would do for us, is a little uncertain to me. The MSM would love it though. 24 hours a day trials a go go for about 20 years! Whoopee. Let them all do a Massouia!
Really, anticipating this kind of defence for jihadis captured in combat and out of uniform, I would have shot them all on the spot and let Allah sort them out.

[kenlarsson]

They ran the Keillor column in today's St. Pete Times as well as this editorial. I don't know if Mr. Howards version is true but it does fit the pattern of what's been going on.



Speak out, but at your own risk
A Times Editorial
Published October 5, 2006

Compliments are fine, rousing cheers are even better, but don't let officials catch you criticizing the president and vice president when they make a public appearance. That could land you in the pokey.

That's where Steven Howards, an environmental consultant from Golden, Colo., found himself after he had the nerve to denounce the war in front of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Imagine that. An American citizen who thinks the administration has gotten it wrong on Iraq and says so is handcuffed by a Secret Service agent and charged with a crime for exercising his right of free speech.

According to Howards, he was taking his 8-year-old son to piano lessons on June 16 when he spotted Cheney at an outdoor mall. Howards said he was within two feet of the vice president when he calmly said something to the effect of, "I think your policies on Iraq are reprehensible." About 10 minutes later, Howards said, he was walking back through the area when he was stopped and handcuffed by a Secret Service agent who told him he would be charged with assaulting the vice president. A charge of harassment was later dropped.

Howards is now suing the agent for a violation of his free speech rights, among other things. He says he was arrested purely for "what I said."

It is truly incomprehensible that such a scenario can play out in a country where freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution. Since President Bush took office, the Secret Service and White House operatives have been aggressively shielding him and Cheney from protestors and public critics. When these leaders appear at events, they are almost always greeted by friendly audiences, while protesters are often banished far from event venues. It is a practice totally at odds with our national traditions of tolerating, if not welcoming, dissent.

Howards' lawsuit is similar to two others that are still wending their way through the courts. One is another suit in Colorado in which two people claim they were ejected from a Bush appearance in 2005 because their car sported an antiwar bumper sticker. The other is a suit in West Virginia in which a couple claims they were arrested at a Bush appearance in 2004 because they were wearing anti-Bush T-shirts.

One has to wonder whether the rights we thought were ours as Americans are becoming little more than feel-good slogans that disintegrate when put to the test. On Friday, Congress authorized legislation giving the president the power to designate Americans suspected of terrorist connections as "unlawful enemy combatants" who can be held indefinitely without charge.

Earlier this week, two Americans of Pakistani descent were allowed back into the country. They had been refused re-entry for five months apparently because they had a relative convicted of a terror-related crime. There were no charges, however, against them.

Free speech, due process and protections against warrantless spying are explicit grants of liberty to each of us. But they don't seem to hold the meaning they once did. We would tell you to complain about this to our leaders, but we wouldn't want you to get arrested.

[Cosmic Wonder]

ducktrapper said:

Really, anticipating this kind of defence for jihadis captured in combat and out of uniform, I would have shot them all on the spot and let Allah sort them out.

Nice Duck. Unfortunately abunch of them were not "captured in combat", but were turned over to our forces by persons who got paid cash for it.

Call me a fuzzy headed liberal, but I got issues with that.
Mike

[Supertramp78]

I have to admit that I really like the argument that we aren't so bad because others are worse. This gives us a lot of maneuvering room to do just about anything. Based on that logical justification, we should be able to gas people to death just as long as we don't cremate the bodies afterward. Maybe we can cut someone's throat, just as long as we don't actually cut the head entirely off.

This new freedom, and lets us not forget that freedom is what we are fighting for, to do pretty much whatever we want is very liberating. I've actually heard the detention in Gitmo defended because it is no worse than locking up the Japanese during WWII. Now just because most Americans now view that episode as possibly the greatest violation of Constitutional Rights in US history shouldn't bother anyone. It is now the new benchmark of allowable behavior.

Torture? So what, others have tortured more.
Hearsay evidence? So what, some countries don't even take the time to make evidence up.
Evidence from torture allowed? So what, the fact that it isn't reliable shouldn't matter to a true American. Remember 9/11.

[mnhermit]

Thanks ST - I think that's the first post in a while when I've actually been able to hear the tongue in cheek satire. :-) (which may make you an illegal enemy combatant) aside - don't you just love that phrase 'illegal' enemy combatant.

[ducktrapper]

Ken - Never been arrested? It sucks. I hope he sues their a$$es and wins. But you're not convincing me that you have lost freedoms.

Cosmic - They let those guys and a lot of others go already. Do you know how many went straight back to the battlefield? Are you convinced that this covers the majority of the prisoners there? Do any of you think that the GC's are supposed to protect folks like this. You are SOOOOO wrong about the GC's intentions but I'll let you figure that out.
As defined in the GC's, illegal combatants can indeed be summarily executed. You want it all legal-like. Where's the problem with that?

[Deleted]

"Yer flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore" - John Prine

Tom

[ducktrapper]

It never did. Gotta go. Love you guys!

[Deleted]

News flash! I've been among those who were rounded up and held without being given a reason, over 35 years ago.

Wonder how many recounts we should have had in Florida. Seems that three counts with the same results wasn't enough. Maybe there should have been 40 or 50.... or until reaching the desired results?

[ducktrapper]

It seems to me example of the SS and the president used above is a canard. I trap ducks so let's try to trap this one. It seems to me that this is not a partisan issue. Does anyone think much will change with the SS if a Democrat wins the office in 2008? Can anyone truly say that with the most vilified president in US history that dissent has been squashed? To me this is more about what passes for political discourse recently. Members of the DU or Koskids seem to think that heckling is effective political debate. A pie in Bush's face would be a great moment. So you can't get close to the president? Does anyone actually think he is effectively insulated from the criticism he receives? You can demonstrate across the street from his house can't you? You can still vote him out. No?
As a Canadian I have to ask. What rights has anyone here actually lost? Outside of air travel, what would or could you do in 2000 that you can't do today?
As someone who actually indulges in something illegal, I find I can live without fear as long as I'm cool about it. That's the kind of freedom I need. The freedoms we should really fear losing are all caused by fearing Islam and its violent reaction to whatever they decide to react against. Oh can't draw a cartoon or make a movie without a death threat? Can't throw a Koran in the crapper? Even if it's my koran?
You're free to indulge in the most egregious characterizations of your president without fear of reprisal but if you're not free to insult Mohammed?

[Supertramp78]

Outside of air travel, what would or could you do in 2000 that you can't do today?

Well let's see.

Up until the Supreme Court overturned it, I used to be secure in the knowlege that my government wouldn't throw me in jail without charges and without access to legal representation. NOw that is only a danger to my relatives who live overseas.

I used to be able to make international phone calls without fear that my government was listening or if they were listening that they had a warrant requiring probably cause to do it.

I used to be able to tell the President or Vice President anything I wanted as long as it wasn't a threat, as long as they were in a public place. Can't do that anymore without getting arrested.

I used to be able to hold my head high and tell people that my country didn't support torture, or secret CIA prisons in foreign countries, or holding people without charges or trials without the defendant being told the evidence against him or even if that evidence (if any) was obtained by torture. I can't do that anymore either.

Not that any of this matters to some people, just the moral authority of this Nation to speak in public without averting its eyes.

[loopysanchez]

GK's article loses me when he equates Methodists to German Nazis with his "Jews, gays, and gypsies" comment. Pretty much a follow-up to his "GOP is a party full of brown-shirts" comment from his book.

He can wax aw-shucks eloquent all he wants to, but the whole "____ are a bunch of Nazis" BS is an insult to everyone who truly sufferred at the hands of the REAL Nazis. He just doesn't seem to understand that, or simply doesn't care. I guess it plays well with the NPR/Progressive Caucus crowd who would complain about the pill's flavor if Bush invented a cure for cancer, but he could have made his point just as well if not better by avoiding that same old tired-out Nazi crap. As much as Bush sucks at being anything close to resembling an actual leader, GK should've knocked this one out of the park. The whole Nazi thing was a bunt single, at best.