Typical

Yesterday the House of Representatives passed an administration-backed system of questioning and prosecuting terrorism suspects. According to this WaPo article, "many congressional Democrats decided to swallow their misgivings and vote for the bill to avoid being portrayed as less than vigilant against suspects captured in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere." This statement portrays what is glaringly wrong with American politics and the inability of voters to thoughtfully analyze issues and the intentions of its elected officials. House Majority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) made this absurd statement: "It is outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country." This shameful and profoundly unthoughtful statement is typical of the partisan knee-jerk rhetoric from Congress. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) one-ups John Boehner's ignorance with this shameless ploy to politicize and invoke victims of the September 11 attacks: "Let's bring justice before the eyes of the children and widows of Sept. 11."

One fairly obvious, yet insightful in the context of the forum, from House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.): "Defending America requires us to marshal the full range of our power: diplomatic and military, economic and moral. And when our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well." The contention surrounds whether to extend the right of habeas corpus to detainees. I often hear the argument that they (the terrorists) would not extend that courtesy to U.S. troops or that we are dealing with a brutal enemy so we can forgo some policies that provide them rights. The argument is a shallow one, those rights are exactly what gives the U.S. the moral legitimacy to fight under the banner of freedom; the administration's disregard for those "rules" is what has been undermining our efforts around the world.

Amusingly, 'the legislation loosely defines "cruel or inhuman treatment" of detainees, which would constitute a war crime. The administration said the term should apply to techniques resulting in "severe" physical or mental pain, but lawmakers set the standard at "serious."' I guess they should ask the victim at the time of the "treatment" whether they feel they are under "serious" or "severe" duress.

Finally, according to the article, "for lesser offenses barred by the Geneva Conventions -- those falling between cruelty and minor abuse -- the legislation would authorize the president to interpret "the meaning and application" of relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions." How convenient...