Lindsey, Lindsey, LINDSEY!

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who helped draft the legislation during negotiations with the White House, said the measure would set up a system for treating detainees that the nation could be proud of. He said the goal "is to render justice to the terrorists, even though they will not render justice to us." lindsey, lindsey, lindsey, WTF do you mean by this? aren't they actually trying to render justice to us (in their own loveable way)?

so, an update: i read the first section of s.3930. read: i printed it out and read it and drew all over it (actually, added my honest questions and some commentary for comic relief). The following are some notes i made:

• ok so i don't need to be concerned because i'm not "alien" and will not be considered an "alien unlawful enemy combatant."


• what about those who hold US citizenship who ARE engaged in hostilities (like some of those arrested in the UK were of pakistani descent but were UK citizens)?


• section 48D.a.: they mention that this applies to crimes committed "before, on or after september 11, 2001." so, basically, WHENEVER. i could change the above date with the date of my birth and have it mean the same thing. (might that date have been inserted as a kind of "hotspot" to attract eyes and engage an emotional response that makes the use of reason less important?)

and, like any good student, i made a note of areas that will require "further research" :

Uniform code of military justice:

• section 810 (art. 10) is inapplicable


• sections 831 and 832 (art. 31 and 32) also inapplicable

SECTION 949(d) of the above mentioned bill (i've only read section 948)

i have to see section 949 because that may be the part they're saying "takes away haebeus corpus" - this section is mentioned in 948J.d.:... a military judge detailed to a military commission under this chapter MAY NOT CONSULT WITH THE MEMBERS EXCEPT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED (EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SECTION 949D OF THIS TITLE)

and don't worry, i didn't miss section 948B.f, which says, "Geneva Conventions not establishing source of rights - no alien unlawful combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at his trial by military commission"

i interpret that as: he's basically a dog in a cage.

(thanks to usatoday for letting me cut and paste!)

couldn't those who thought the bill was being pushed through too quickly refused to vote until they had time to read it and make a decision?