[KevinTheOmnivore]

Kahl, you make a fair point, but there's the question of precedent. I also think we need to do what's best to defeat terrorists, but there is an argument to be made against that distinction. Afte all, are we really bating terrorists if we hypothetically make America less free, less deliberative, and more like, I dunno, a country in the Middle East....?

Also, let's say we win the war on terrorism somehow, but 50 years from now this law is still on the books. if it's as bad as Max would lead you to believe, well than a really rotten executive could potentially twist it around for entirely different aims.

Now, I don't think this bill does that, but despite Max's rantings, I do see his concerns. I'm not a big believer in any kind of torture. I think it yields too few results, and it's not worth the ethical consequences. I know there's a debate to be had, for example waterboarding doesn't present serious physical harm to people, and supposedly helped us get Khalid Sheik Mohammed to talk. But even a lot of his info was proven to be unreliable apparently.

Do I think waterboarding makes us as bad as them? No, but you don't want to get into the equivalence argument. I think we're having two distinct discussions here. one is about the appropriate measures to extract info from those who wish to destroy us. The other is about whether or not this new legislation is a signal that we are willing to take drastic and potentially unethical measures. Once again, I don't believe it allows this.

Max--

"If legislators believe the constitution is wrong, there is a lengthy and difficult system for changing it that is lengthy and difficult by design."

For someone who throws arrogant around like breath mints, that's a pretty bold assumption. So if the courts don't find this unconstitutional,what then for you Max?

You seem to think this has never happened before, that somehow this is different than ever before, and this particular president is the most evil ever. Do I need to go down the list from Adams, to Lincoln, to FDR? Presidents do conroversial things, push controversial legislation, and the court's test it against our constitution. You seem to think what's going on right now is outside the boundaries of the process, but this is the process.

"And who determines the grave breaches excercised against people who whereabouts don't have to be known, who do not have access to lawyers. how have not been charged? Where is the oversight? The status quo meant that when these rights were deprived, laws were being broken. This bill does not exist in a vaccuum. It works in concert with the other new bills. It's nice they have rights. Who is allowed to advocate for them, and how will they do it?"

You're right, a lot of this in in conjunction with prior legislation, and basically allows the president a pass on what has gone on up to this point, particularly at GITMO. If I said again that the bill had holes, would you call me a fascist, or just morally vapid? Maybe a medly of the two?

"As determined by whom? No lawyers, no xongressional oversight, no charges. Seems like the executive branch has all the marbles here."

Not entiely true:

`Sec. 949f. Challenges

`(a) Challenges Authorized- The military judge and members of a military commission under this chapter may be challenged by the accused or trial counsel for cause stated to the military commission. The military judge shall determine the relevance and validity of challenges for cause, and may not receive a challenge to more than one person at a time. Challenges by trial counsel shall ordinarily be presented and decided before those by the accused are offered.

`(b) Peremptory Challenges- The accused and trial counsel are each entitled to one peremptory challenge, but the military judge may not be challenged except for cause.

`(c) Challenges Against Additional Members- Whenever additional members are detailed to a military commission under this chapter, and after any challenges for cause against such additional members are presented and decided, the accused and trial counsel are each entitled to one peremptory challenge against members not previously subject to peremptory challenge.

And....

`Sec. 949i. Pleas of the accused

`(a) Plea of Not Guilty- If an accused in a military commission under this chapter after a plea of guilty sets up matter inconsistent with the plea, or if it appears that the accused has entered the plea of guilty through lack of understanding of its meaning and effect, or if the accused fails or refuses to plead, a plea of not guilty shall be entered in the record, and the military commission shall proceed as though the accused had pleaded not guilty.

`(b) Finding of Guilt After Guilty Plea- With respect to any charge or specification to which a plea of guilty has been made by the accused in a military commission under this chapter and accepted by the military judge, a finding of guilty of the charge or specification may be entered immediately without a vote. The finding shall constitute the finding of the military commission unless the plea of guilty is withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence, in which event the proceedings shall continue as though the accused had pleaded not guilty.

Again, perhaps my biggest problem with all of this is the people who are already in custody. But it is still important to keep in mind where these people came from, who they are, ad what they've done.

You'll say we've wrongly accused people. True. But we've also released people who have gone right back to fighting us. Even in our own justice system, which you use as a basis for your concerns, has many flaws. innocent people go to jail sometimes, and innocent people even get executed sometimes. Does that mean the whole system is rotten?

I know, you want oversight-- but this isn't the first arena where the executive is autonomous. If it over steps the constitution, then the courts will decide, no?