http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

Luis Posada Carriles was released from jail after paying bond on April 19th 2007. The US Fifth District Court of Appeals in New Orleans rejected a Justice Department request Posada be refused bail for entering the U.S. illegally and he was escorted by Federal agents to Miami where members of the Cuban community welcomed him as a patriot.

Nice to know that this is the Republican bar for good job performance: Not committing a felony.

Not quite accurate. You're free to commit felonies. You simply can't be indicted. uh oh.. Did I say indicted? I meant convicted.

I'd rather hear more about items 1 and 3 rather than more Joe Klein. But then again, I haven't listened to the podcast yet (no audio at work) so maybe I'll change my mind.

But addressing the utter irresposibility of Lieberman's remarks remains high on my list as well as the status of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. (I couldn't help but notice that both the NYT and WaPo headlines concerning the ruling referred to him as an 'enemy combattant' though they both used scare-quotes as they did so)

Rather than compiling more evidence about JK's wankerhood, why don't you look a little harder into why Time magazine seems so willing to carry water for Scooter Libby in the first place. I seem to recall that they were somewhat in the middle of the leakfest as it was going down but I don't recall the details.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083870-2,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

But we have found no authority for holding that the evidence offered by the Government affords a basis for treating al-Marri as an enemy combatant, or as anything other than a civilian.

On Friday, June 20, 2003, the court scheduled a hearing on pre-trial motions, including a motionto suppress evidence against al-Marri assertedly obtained by torture. On the following Monday, June 23, before that hearing could be held, the Government moved ex parte to dismiss the indictment based on an order signed that morning by the President.

It would appear to me that the only reason the administration insists on creating the "enemy combatant"`designation is so that they can apply their interrogation techniques at will. I know there are many people who are perfectly OK with that but few of them seem to make it to the Federal bench. Must be all that time they spent studying the Constitution and case histories puts them off their game.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of al-Marri’s habeas petition because al-Marri had failed to rebut the allegations in the Rapp Declaration. In August 2006, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed al-Marri’s habeas petition.

As noted above, the first court managed to allow the burden of proof shift to the defndant.

We need not, however, resolve these difficult constitutional

questions because we conclude that the MCA does not apply to al-Marri

The rest of the opinion is based on the clear reading of the law Congress passed in order to sheild the administration's activity.

As I said, it appears to me that the whole basis of the government's action is that they thought they could get some valuable names (and phone numbers) from Al-Marri but they couldn't do so as long as he was a criminal defendant. It's also clear to me that the administartion has decided that we're fighting a war on American soil and that The Posse Comitatus Act is just another one of those quaint, antique notions, just like Habeus Corpus itself.

The primary reason they want to be able to designate al-Marri nan enemy combattant was so they could "coersive technique" his contact list out of him. Unlike most terrorist suspects who've made it to trial, this guy had a rather strong case against him. But in the US, waterboarding criminal suspects is against the rules. Hence the enemy combatant designation.

Anyone who thinks that this is a good idea needs to be reminded that "enemy combatant" is in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps these folks would qualify: http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/PCU2288.php

The founders wouldn't have put all those safeguards into the Constitution in the first place, if they weren't familiar enough with human nature to realize why they were necessary.

We pretend to be rational beings but history suggests that we are better described as rationalizing beings.

I wish the candidates for President would each be asked what they think about wielding such power-- and whether they think they should have it

The Republican candidates were indeed asked in the first debate and they were all falling over each other in their zeal to render Guantanamo as double-plus-good.

It's going to be challenging to educate Americans as to why throwing away their rights is such a bad idea. Especially while the press is doing such a piss-poor job of even describing the issues that are at stake.

than other posters to think that pure evil motivates BushCo or to try and come up with clever ways of conveying that idea.

I'm just convinced that 9-11 scared the piss out of them, catching them completely unawares and that shortly afterwards they decided that kicking random ass and torturing confessions out of people was an appropriate response. All the rest of the time has been spent alternately concealing or excusing the results.

I couldn't help but notice that powerline disses the Constitution while failing to note that the court based its entire decision on the clear intent of Congress and made it a point NOT to rule on any Constitutional issues.

Once a liar....