This is amazing

The president has already said he'll veto any bill that attempts to regulate U.S. treatment of detainees.:

The Bush administration, under fire for the indefinite detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and questions over whether its policies led to horrendous abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, put lawmakers on notice it did not want them legislating on the matter.

In a statement, the White House said such amendments would "interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war."

"If legislation is presented that would restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice," the bill could be vetoed, the statement said.

Because, apparently, Congress is no longer responsible for making laws. Not while the entire country is a battlefield, no sirree. We'll all march to the orders of our Commander-in-Chief, yes we will.

Biscuit Variety Pack

The Irish Examiner reports that the CIA can now interrogate Irish citizens in total secrecy. What does the Examiner think of this? Well, the article's not an opinion piece, but it's not difficult to figure it out:

The person who will request co-operation is US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the man who, as White House counsel, instigated the notorious 'torture memo' to US President George W Bush which advised how far CIA agents could go in torturing prisoners. The person to whom the request is sent is the Minister for Justice.

About 20,000 immigrants, who have not been charged with any crime, are currently in prison in the US. In two recent US Supreme Court cases, the US Government argued that US citizens could be imprisoned indefinitely without charge if the president designated them as "enemy combatants".

In other news, WaPo reports that

The House for the first time in five years will weigh in on national space policy today, considering a bipartisan endorsement of President Bush's initiative to send humans to the moon and Mars and authorizing an extra $1.3 billion over the next two years to forestall cuts in NASA's traditional programs in science and aeronautics.

Because going to Mars should definitely be a big priority right now.

Oh, and while we're parsing the French Fries case, Congress is working on making most of the Patriot Act permanent.

Also, the UK police ask for lots of fun new powers to combat terrorism.

Most of you probably have seen this already, but New York has just started random searches of subway passengers' bags. Boston, D.C., and all the other major transit systems are watching closely to see if they, too, can violate passengers' rights for no actual public safety benefit.

Finally, did you know the military has developed microwave ray guys for crowd dispersal? That's so Futurama, dontcha think?

What to think about Roberts

James Balkin in Newsday: A nominee after Bush's own heart:

The most dangerous issue is presidential power. Bush has pushed the constitutional envelope, throwing U.S. citizens in military prisons without hearings, and demanding the right to search without judicial warrants. His lawyers claim Congress can't interfere with his interrogation practices, even if cruel, inhuman and degrading.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and courts are one of the few institutions with an interest in preserving the rule of law from an overreaching executive. Don't expect Roberts to stand up to Bush. Roberts will support the president.

And that's exactly why Bush chose him.

Here's John Yoo (yes, THAT John Yoo) in the Washington Post:

Confirming Roberts could also be the first step in bringing consensus to the Supreme Court itself. In his few opinions, Roberts has displayed a noteworthy deference to the elected branches of government on matters of policy. In what is becoming known as the "french fry" case, Roberts (a father of two young children) did not allow his clear personal feelings to get in the way of upholding a valid regulation prohibiting eating on Washington's Metro, even though it resulted in the arrest of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry. Last week, Roberts was a member of a unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit that accepted Bush's decision to use special military courts to try Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard, and that refused to second-guess Bush's decision that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the war against al Qaeda. No doubt critics of these decisions would have preferred different rulings, but Roberts understood that those choices are up to the president and Congress, not the unelected courts.

E.J. Dionne, also in the Post:

Anyone who doubts that Roberts will be a consistent conservative vote on the court should examine the avalanche of endorsements that immediately fell his way from right-of-center groups. Brian Fahling of the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy called Roberts an excellent choice. The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said the nomination of Roberts provided "an unparalleled opportunity to restore the proper role of the Supreme Court." Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice called the nomination "great news."

These gentlemen are not "squishes," to use the popular right-wing word for conservative sellouts. They care passionately about moving the court to the right. If they think Roberts will do that, the rest of us should pay attention.

There's nothing we can do about Roberts, unfortunately, except to gird our loins for a long battle to retrieve and retain our civil rights. The third branch of government is about to fall into the hands of men who believe the President has the right to order torture, to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial (all of America is a battlefield, after all!), and, basically, to do whatever he damn well pleases if he can lie and say it's related to the GWOT.

Court Update: The Padilla Case

U.S. a Battlefield, Solicitor General Tells Judges:

Luttig repeatedly pressed Clement, even after the solicitor general noted that Padilla's alleged intentions as a soldier of al Qaeda -- to target civilians -- constituted "unlawful combatantcy" even if he were on a battlefield in uniform.

"Those accusations don't get you very far," Luttig replied, "unless you're prepared to boldly say the United States is a battlefield in the war on terror."

Clement answered, "I can say that, and I can say it boldly."

But Michael said Padilla wasn't captured anywhere near a battlefield. "You captured Padilla in a Manhattan jail cell," Michael said. "What, in the laws of war, allows you to undertake a non-battlefield capture and hold them for the duration? I don't think you cite anything."

Surveillance

The FBI Counterterrorism Unit tracking the activities of legal, non-terrorist organizations like the ACLU and United For Peace and Justice. Fine, the FBI is watching us, but why the Counter-Terrorism Unit? Since when is the ACLU involved in terrorism? By the way, are you a card-carrying member? You should be.

Not just the FBI either. The California National Guard terrorist unit was called out to monitor a peaceful anti-war protest.

And here's an immigration lawyer who's serving a year in prison, for, apparently, criticizing the Patriot Act.

Also, your ISP may be filtering your email and not bothering to tell you. Fine then, let them filter out the viagra ads. Not those, though. They're filtering out messages that contain AfterDowningStreet.org in the body of the message. Where do we live now, China??

Finally, on another topic, new study shows that most of the foreign terrorists flowing into Iraq were not terrorists before we invaded Iraq.