Bush AGREES with Hitler and Stalin: Time of war requires UNLIMITED Arrests, Detentions, and TORTURE by State Security vs "enemies of the state."

Old news, new 'news':

Over at the New York Times' wholly owned subsidiary the Boston Globe, the Globe.com ran this AP story about a Bush-Cheney bill that would allow for UNLIMITED ARREST, DETENTION, and/or DEPORTATION POWERS (to points unknown and unknowable, sort of like Stalin's gulag) under the fuzzy, teddy-bear sounding headline "Bush SUBMITS new terror DETAINEE bill."

"NEW_DETAINEE bill..." What the hell does that mean? Does that mean detainees are being billed for being detained; or that there will be a bill in the mail if your are momentarily detained by the police for a traffic ticket or jay-walking offense or some other infraction?

NO... as even a momentary glimpse at the article reveals, "New Detainee Bill" is about a proposed law allowing for VAST, UNLIMITED POWERS to ARREST, HOLD, DETAIN, and IMPRISON anyone the authorities deem necessary... WITH THE ARRESTED having, according to this bill, NO opportunity or requirement (what we used to call, in America before George W. Bush's "bring back chattel slavery" administration, "rights") TO EVEN SEE A JUDGE or let one's family know where you had been taken.

Now, connect this "old news" AP story by Anne Plummer Flaherty from July of 2006, with her latest AP offering today:

"BILL WOULD EASE CIA INTERROGATION LIMITS"

Translation: UNLIMITED POWERS TO TORTURE, with NO outside supervision, oversight, or accountability to ANYONE ouyside of the President's own executive/military command.

You can see that Anne Plummer Flaherty's two articles DO INDEED BELONG TOGETHER: ONE advocates UNLIMITED ARREST, INCARCERATION, and DETENTION POWERS (can anyone say "concentration-camp prison system"?); and the other says "UNLIMITED TORTURE POWERS," which means "Whoops, another prisoner died under interrogation... WELL, THAT'S JUST TOO BAD."

THIS UNLIMITED ** CONCENTRATION-CAMP and TORTURE ** AGENDA BROUGHT TO THE WORLD and America by THE CRAVEN, LYING reporting of the SULZBERGER-owned NEW YORK TIMES, and the equally craven, cowardly, and corrupt reporting of the WASHINGTON POST.

Oh yeah... and JOHN KERRY was on TV this morning, so smug and self-assured, when asked point-blank "IS THE UNITED STATES SAFER TODAY than it was before 9-11?" well, cowering John couldn't spit out a straight answer if his life depended on it, and even his evasion into the wordy-esque was pathetically pitiful. (Qoting from memory here, since NOTHING Mr. Kerry nor any of the other Democrats have said in the past 6 years is worth firing up a TiVo recording for -)

(kerry) "WELL, IN some_SMALL_WAYS we ARE safer..."


JOHN, you big $#!@^!! idiot... did you NOT READ today's Washington Post and New York Times??!


You know, the articles, "BIN LADEN's TRAIL HAS GONE COLD"?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901105_pf.html

You know, "Al Qaida Finds its Center of Gravity" ???
(aka "Al Qaida and Taliban GAINING STRENGTH in Pakistan)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/weekinreview/10rohde.html?ei=5094&en=4b76493599820c5c&hp=&ex=1157947200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1157893462-r459ufSCdC9QL3C5qK612g

Or, if you or your staff are even remotely capable of reading past the cowardly WP and craven NYT, maybe even finding THIS article, "US policies (BUSH Administration polices) MAY BE HELPING Taliban and Al Qaida":

U.S. strategy may be helping Taliban, expert says
Andrew Maykuth
September 10, 2006 3:01 AM
http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=564802806877651061


CLEARLY, Mr. Kerry thinks he is so smart for not saying "WE ARE LESS SAFE TODAY," because such a comment would be plastered all over the universe, used by the Bush-Rove-GOP 2006 campaign team relentlessly as a "Kerry & Democrats HAVE NO FAITH in America!" headline.

But, Mr. Kerry, YOU did NOT have to give Bush-Rove-Cheney that ammunition... you COULD HAVE SAID;

- "Today's NY Times reports that Al Qaida and the Taliban are STRENGTHENING in Pakistan and Afghanistan, that FIVE YEARS AFTER 9-11 Mr. Bush has practically NO INTEL on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, and that the Bush administration has recently earned "D" and "F" *** FAILING GRADES *** from the 9-11 Commission Final Report on steps NOT TAKEN to PROTECT America from FUTURE 9-11 attacks!" -

Mr. Kerry, YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE THES POINTS, FORCEFULLY, ARTICULATELY, and in as few words as posssible (especially considering YOUR PRACTICE through THE ENTIRE 2004 election campaign!), but instead your smug voyage into the wordy-esque reveals how small is your TRUE OPPOSITION to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove MISREPRESENTATION, MISINFORMATION, and MISADMINISTRATION (and in-your-face corruption) of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more generally "the war on terror" worldwide" - with many critics making the argument in rational, simple English that the Bush-Rove-Rumsfeld-Cheney administration ARE MAKING THINGS WORSE.

---------------------------------------------

"US GIVEN *FAILING GRADES* by 9-11 Panel"
http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_report.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500097.html


<< U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill. >>


========================================

Bush submits new terror detainee bill

By Anne Plummer Flaherty, Associated Press Writer  
July 28, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/28/bush_submits_new_terror_detainee_bill/

WASHINGTON --U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.
Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.
According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."
Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.
"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.
Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court -- and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.
The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.
Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.
The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.
"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.
The draft proposal contends that an existing law -- passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. -- that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.
------
On the Net:
A copy of the report can be found at: http://balkin.blogspot.com/