There is ONE rational explanation for the detainee torture bill:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

It is a cry for help! When a Congressman or Senator is talking about it, is anyone checking to see if they are blinking in Morse code for the camera? Did they make it so PATENTLY illegal and unconstitutional (no judicial review, ex-post facto, no habeas corpus, etc.) that we could clearly see that it is a ransom note scrawled by hostages with clues hidden within? Clearly, no one who is sane, moral, or versed in the Constitution would draft such a document. Have they all had horse heads stuffed in their beds? Are there any desparate notes in lipstick on mirrors in the Congressional ladies room?

[niyad]

1. interesting questions indeed.

[AX10]

2. I'd consider that. I still cannot find any rational reason...

as to why such a law was passed.

[Reaction]

6. Imperialism abroad

requires repression at home. "Enemy combatant" can (and most likely will) be extended to anti-war protesters and others who protest their gov't. Rough and turbulent times are ahead and authoritarian measures will be needed to keep the people in line. This is just the beginning. Thanks to all of the Democrats who put their short-term electoral prospects ahead of their professed affinity for democracy and allowed this to be passed. They couldn't have done it without you. Harold Ford Jr et al - way to go!

[wtmusic]

3. Problem is, SCOTUS can reject only part of the bill

and Junior still walks.

[AX10]

4. Can they at least reinstate Habeaus Corpus?

[wtmusic]

7. Fine by me

and if they want to do it right Junior wouldn't walk, because Geneva is still protected under USC
Article IV.

Though it's unlikely that anyone would prosecute W for Gitmo war crimes, from a strictly legal standpoint he would have a slim defense.

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. "no one who is sane, moral," etc., WELL, that eliminates your PNAC gang!

.
.
.

The PNACers just wanna make Hitler's goal WORK!

Global domination (only Hitler just wanted a big chunk of one Continent, not the whole World)

And so far,

it is . .

(sigh)

[pat_k]

8. Hmmm. . .

. . .you may be on to something!

What else could explain passage of a bill that, as originally submitted, contained the heading "Rights Not Judicially Enforceable"? (i.e., Unequivocal proof of their recognition that their ARE rights, and their intent (Malice Aforethought) to violate those rights through non-enforcement.)

They dropped the heading -- not the provision that gives us new and improved "inalienable rights" -- now they are inalienable AND unenforceable. (What's wrong with you? Don't you see that two qualifiers are TWICE as good as one?).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2255629&mesg_id=2255629

[Doctor_J]

9. Yes - Smirk is now the Shah of America

I can't say any more or I'll be called a freeper, despite my 8000 posts bashing everything GOP.