Freedom of the Press.

Something else that, were I not a regular reader of Glenn Greenwald's blog, I wouldn't have known:

Bilal Hussein is the Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press photographer who was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq back in April -- almost six months ago. Along with 14,000 other people around the world (at least), he continues to remain in U.S. custody without being charged with any crime. The U.S. military has vaguely claimed that he has close ties with Iraqi insurgents but refuses to specify what it is specifically that he is alleged to have done, refuses to provide any hearing or process of any kind for him to learn of the charges or contest them, and refuses to respond to AP's requests for information about why he is being held.

Apparently what he's guilty of is trying to document the war in Iraq. The bastard. That will teach him to commit photojournalism without spouting the Partei line. How the hell do you think we went from 17th in the world in freedom of the press to a whopping 53rd?

And see that power that the Administration is using on journalists it doesn't like? That's the same power that they, thanks to that obscenity called the Military Commissions Act of 2006, can now use on you.

Points for any seething Bushites reading this:

First, where in the Constitution does it say that only citizens have the right to due process of law? Last I checked, if a foreigner committed a crime in the US, we put him on trial instead of summarily jailing him.

Second, although the Military Commissions Act specifies that it only applies against non-citizens, how would a United States citizen "mistakenly" labelled as an enemy combatant seek redress without habeas corpus? Answers involving the infallibility of the Bush administration will be met with well-deserved derision.

Third, what's with all the hate? Labelling everyone that disagrees with you America-haters that need to be jailed or killed for the good of the country makes you look like a bunch of brown-shirted, jackbooted, seig-heiling fascists.

Because If I Could Let Bullshit Slide, I Wouldn't Be Doing This

Yeah, I was just going to let it slide, but screw it. The biggest perk of running your own blog is the ability to get the last word.

On the off chance that Blog Mad or Blog Explosion inflict my site upon PrivatePigg's delicate sensibilities, my response to his response:

1. No, you and Brian are trying to make the argument about FDR and not Bush, and I won't let you.

2. Again, no you don't get to switch the argument. And no lefty claims that every Muslim in the US is in internment - note that I didn't, either. I merely asserted that the populations of Gitmo and whatever other hellholes we're operating are exclusively Muslim. You could easily rebut this by listing all the inmates that aren't Muslims - not merely non-Arab, because they're not the same thing.

3. Let me enlighten you regarding this little concept we have here called freedom of association:

[While the]United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment itself does not make specific mention of a right to association. The United States Supreme Court jurisprudence names two distinct ways in which the right may be implicated:

1. Freedom of association is recognized and may be protected as a fundamental element of personal liberty when choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships are at issue.

2. Freedom of association is recognized and may be protected for the purposes of engaging in activities protected by the text of the First Amendment—speech, assembly, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. Because the role of these relationships is central to safeguarding individual freedoms, they may receive protection from undue intrusion by the State. Thus, there is a constitutional freedom to associate as a means of preserving other individual liberties.

This is not merely a conservative meme, it's a libertarian one.

4. One thing we agree on is that this Administration has made the 4th Amendment irrelevant. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of due process of law either.

And those "I'm smarter than you" quips apparently drew blood, hence your response. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Really read it - then come back here and tell me that ol' Chimpy is merely exercising his Constitutional powers. This would be one of the many reasons why his approval is at 33%.

Oh, and regarding your use of liberal as an insult:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.^[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.^[3]

If this is an insult, remind me to get insulted more often. Of course, I'm casually curious as to when fiscal responsibility, constitutionalism, less intrusive federal government, and personal responsibility became liberal values, but whatever.

Yep, lots of wikipedia this time. Not the source I prefer, but you win arguments with the sources you have, not the ones you want or might wish to have.

PS: Regarding your refusal to patronize my site, PrivatePigg - it's fair enough, as I have yours blocked as well. On the other hand, I read yours first. You should think of doing the same next time, lest you find yourself once again accusing a libertarian whose idea of fine dining is a restaurant with metal silverware of being a liberal elite. Just sayin'.

That Didn't Take Long

Looks like ol' Chimpy McHauptsturmführer couldn't wait to play with his new toys:

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

The Washington Post goes on to reassure us that these efforts are only valid against non-citizens while conveniently forgetting that if a citizen is labelled an enemy combatant, he won't be able to see a judge to get habeas corpus rights - that's what removing habeas corpus means.

"Conservatives", of course (quoted because real conservatives don't support torture and the removal of habeas corpus) rush to assure us that this is what that blue-ribbon horsefucker Georgie wanted all along - to get those criminal taxi drivers and falafel vendors and find out what they know, dammit! - and he'd never, never abuse this against American citizens. Nuh-uh. No way.

Yeah. Suuuure.

With this Act in place, by the way, Chimpy meets the definition of tyrant. God, how the world laughs at us. We finally give up on the Great Experiment, and our first post-democracy Leader is a chimp.

Sanity and Honesty

From Keith Olbermann's show:

I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, “a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.”

Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.

So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he’s going be putting on this board.

Go read it - it's one big money quote and I'm flirting with fair use violations as it is - but before you do, let me address this point:

OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?

Let's explore that, shall we?

Sanity:
A discussion regarding Bush hearing voices.
An extensive discussion on ol' Chimpy's mental health, with links.

Honesty:
MSNBC reports on the opinion the American people have of Bush's honesty.
This site attempts to document the reasons Chimpy's thought of as dishonest.
As does this one.
And this one, though he's getting behind.
Oh, look. Someone wrote a book.

So, to sum up, we now have a system of government and what I'll mockingly refer to as "law" that rely, not on due process, judicial review, or even the preponderance of evidence, but solely upon the whim - excuse me, sanity and honesty - of a man who is a proven liar and may possibly be a madman.

And the people that tell you the loudest about how they're for God, apple pie, family values and protecting American freedom? Yeah, they're the ones that support this jackass.