« The Great Conflation | Main | A New Decision? »

17 October 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I read, and have heard, lots of assertions that this law will be declared unconstitutional. Justice Stevens is 89 years old. Let’s hope he has a lot more good years in him. Because I doubt that any one Bush’s nominates to the court will vote to overturn this. And that makes it 5-4 for upholding the law, by my reading.


Well, this Canadian won't be setting foot in the United States ever again. When I travel I'm going to go to great lengths to ensure that my connecting flights don't touch down, or even fly over U.S territory. I'm urging my government to declare a travel advisory regarding the lack of the rule of law and risk of arbitrary detention and torture in the U.S. I will fly to Europe to get to Costa Rica if thats what it takes.

John Howley

"the law is so badly written..."

Oh really? In fact, Congress did such a good job at mouthing King George's desires that NO SIGNING STATEMENT was needed to clarify the legislation.

Richard Lazar

The parallels between the 2 Bush administrations and Gerrmany in the early 1930's is very frightening. Read your history books and shudder.


This is the new American dream, perfect safety in a tightly controlled police state, everything black and white and no more shades of grey. This is what the majority of Americans want for themselves -- they want a bigger version of Singapore, a perfect Big Brother government to protect them and keep them safe, even it requires giving up every right that Americans in the past ever held dear.

Hope you're happy with the blackjack. 'Cause you're going to see a lot of it in upcoming years.

The only good news is that the Busheviks aren't Lee Kuan Yew or Goh Chok Tong, and, in their incompetence, may botch things so badly that the American people decide they aren't so happy with the blackjack after all. I'm not betting on it. I'm working on escape strategies, because I'm betting it'll get worse before it gets better...


Perhaps you should reapply to become a British colony. Then you would have an eighty-year old housewife as head of state instead of The Decider
BTW, I suspect one reason that Bush doesn't like the North Koreans is that Kim Il-sung has already bagged the title "The Great Leader" and that even though he is dead he is still The Eternal President of the Republic of North Korea. Something I am sure that King George the First would like to emulate.

4 billion

Dreams need wings to become reality.

From 'family security matters' Ray Kraft
(Kraft make really bad cheese in Oz, more akin to bog filler)

"Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy."

This quote illustrates a nice little shell play: oppose invasion therefore support terr. oppose torture > supp. terr, oppose Bush > supp. terr.

I am usually good at predicting future events, I predicted alot of people would get fat from eating too much McDonalds. I cannot seem to conjure a vision of Dick Cheney (chain) leaving White house.

4 billion


Stephen Duprey

Col. Lang,

I wonder how Generals Pace and Hayden can square this with their oaths of office? Clearly, Mr. Bush has no such problems. Sadly, too many seem to have forgotten the clause about "...protect the Constitution of the United States from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic...".

Whatever happened to honor?

Best regards,



Got A Watch,
I made that Nuremberg reference to Americans a couple of times when the issue touched the legitimacy of war against Iraq.

They didn't accept that America's actions today are in fact, on a legal basis, comparable to Nazi-Germany's assault on Poland in 1939. The mere suggestion was deemed as 'irrational', 'US bashing', 'Amtiamericanism' and 'blame America first', and eventually 'love for Saddam'.

While I agree with you, that American Exceptionalism cannot make up for the lack of legal basis (at least I do understand your reference in this way), don't expect too many of your fellow citizens to share your view. In my impression the principles of international law, especially those of Nuremberg, that America had helped shape since 1945, seem alien at least to those Americans who prefer to view conflicts like the one in Iraq in terms 'the good guys vs. the bad guys'.

In neo-con world, rule of law is for the losers, or subjects. The principles of pre-emption and the so-called unitary executive complement each other seamlessly. US subjects have to obey US laws. The executive branch does not. Saddam had to obey the UN resolutions. The US did not. Iraqi violations of UN resolutions were cited by the US as a reason to go to war. But nobody else shared that extreme legal minority opinion. And so the US ironically went to war in violation of the very UN charter they claimed to want to uphold. Except that the irony was completely lost on the American people. As was the perilous precedent set.

What I want to say is that there is popular support for the neo-con idea that the Nuremberg Principles are binding for the bad guys, while Ameria's superior virtue exempts her from such restrictions.

I think that's plain hubris, and the results as for US legitimacy, reputation and credibility abroad, speak for themselves.

Byron Raum

confusedponderer, interesting description. I detect a parallel between the way the Israelis view themselves vis-a-vis the Palestinian conflict. "We're the good guys, and therefore what we do is virtuous." It's also the same idea that al-Qaeda holds about itself, except there is no exchange of ideas between al-Qaeda and the neocons (one hopes), whereas there's certainly an exchange of ideas between the Israelis and the neocons.



We are all entitled to our opinions, however many Canadians would disagree with Charles, as they pack to leave this great country for very happy and in the case of "snowbirds" long visits to the USA.


When America discovers what Bush did to them and America, it will still take about a decade to roll-back what he has put into law - especially all the critical issues like the military comission act, the patriot act and his torture legislation.

Who knows, maybe America eventually benefits from this, by fracturing it's monolithic two-party system, and bring in other players, libertarians, or, horrors, greens. America would today urgently need factual debate rather than bipartisan bickering. Dems and the GOP together form a political cartel. They need more competition. But unless campign finance is reformed thoroughly and honestly that won't happen.

Yesterday I saw on CNN that today a representative works a ridiculous 100 days a year in congress. Considering this, it's no miracle why bills are passed that voting representatives made no effort to read, let alone comprehend. This lack of competence and diligence on part of members of congress, made possible excesses like Bush's legislation. We witness a broken process.


I came upon this debate by accident, I was in fact trying to trace the origins of my national anthem. As an Englishman (a statement all but banned by my own government)I have been amazed that any such act could be contemplated in the US. I have also lived through the past decade where my government has become more oppressive than the Soviet regimes they claimed to oppose. This also has been done in the name of anti terrorism. You probably aren't aware in the US that England has almost ceased to exit, we are now occupied and controlled by Scotland. We have laws passed by the Scots that cause the English hardship but don't apply to the Scots. United Kingdom? rubbish we're now simply a cash cow for the Scots to milk. Thogh to be fair, it would appear to be the same for anybody else. Beware these people have a long term agenda and if your not careful you'll go the same way as us. Death by a thousand cuts.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad