12/16/2005

the mccain amendment: why?

My thought here at the beginning is that it sounds unnecessary, in that we already have laws on the books, as the Second Amendment crowd is fond of telling us.

Mr. Ashcroft? Mr. Gonzales?

Update, 12/17:

Of course, the fact that Congress even sees a need to enact such a bill is evidence of its finally awakening to the fact that this outlaw administration requires--gee whiz!--a check against its tendencies to commit egregious felonies and then justify them by passing laws that make the behavior legal!

Ashrcroft? Gonzales? Ha ha!

Oh, and in your fucking face, Guantanamo:

"(b) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section."

I always thought, "You gotta be shitting me" when Rumsfeld et al. would argue that Guantanamo was outside the reach of the U.S. court system. Excuse me? U.S. military personnel doing their official duties at an official U.S. military installation are outside the reach of the U.S. courts? What's wrong with this picture?

That Congress has let this Constitutional travesty exist for four years is itself a travesty. A pissant like Bush pisses on the separation of powers and nobody raises a finger. Better late than never? Stay tuned.


Update 2: Orcinus has more to say on the dangers of unchecked executive power.


Also:

"It is nice that the Bush administration has finally been pressured into backing a ban on cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners. But what remains shocking about this embarrassing and distasteful national debate is that we had to have it at all."

-Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home