He is a troop I support!

Let's see if I got this right. Bush's kangaroo court has only succeeded in convicting a kangaroo skinner and now that court has been skinned. The real actions against captured terrorists have taken place in conventional courts, making the fight against terrorism a matter of law enforcement. It just doesn't get any better than this...

The entire military commissions travesty is felled by a typo.

I can just see Jon Stewart sitting back and saying, "There's nothing for me to do here."

We can only hope that this is merely the first crumbling stone of the dismantling of Bush's deeply unconstitutional (and unconscionable) war against due process and the rule of law.

I can still recall reading in my high school history textbooks the stories of the internment of Asian Americans during World War II. I remember thinking, "Thank God that could never happen now, in the modern era I live in." Well...

To have now witnessed the leadership of my country conducting atrocities arguably worse than the WWII internments -- while the populace sits passively by, mute to the obvious reality that hundreds of human lives are being wrongly stolen away from their owners by the fascist cabal that has usurped our government -- is to realize that our nation's capacity to tacitly condone evil is, sadly, alive and well. Are the detainees in Guantanamo there "wrongly"? (If there is, indeed, any such thing as being there "rightly.") Are they "innocent"? What, indeed, even passes for "lack of guilt" in this Orwellian nightmare? Remember folks: War is Peace. And Liberty is Treason.

The distinction between “unlawful enemy combatants” and “enemy combatants” is of profound legal significance in light of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the original scheme for military tribunals. The Court held that the tribunals must comply with the laws of the United States including treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. Because “enemy combatants” but not “unlawful enemy combatants” are governed by these treaties, the tribunals do not and cannot have jurisdiction over them. It was not an accident that Congress put this requirement in the law authorizing the current scheme. When the administration chose not to go through the process of reassessing the prisoners to change their status to conform to the new statute, I can only imagine it was an intentional attempt to do an end run on the important distinction. Thankfully, the military lawyers who are the judges would have none of it. The administration has shown a long and painful pattern of refusing to do what it must to make the process conform to the law and trying to evade the legal requirements at every turn by any means. This is just the latest. Make no mistake. It is not about incompetence or a mistake. It is an intentional attempt to subvert the law. More than anything, the administration refuses to comply with the law simply because it wants to establish that it does not have to. Think about it. If they had gotten away with it, they could have avoided any accountability on the issue for years by simply continuing to drag their feet in setting up the appellate court that still does not yet exist to review the issue. Now they can set that court up asap to review the issue or belatedly reassess the prisoners' status whichever suits their fancy while the prisoners remain incarcerated and uncharged.

The previous letter said that if the administration had gotten away with their illegal detention they would have done so with great ease.

They have gotten away with it for 6 years-and they will continue to do so under every guise that can be had until someone (such as Peter Brownback, a true legal hero) stops them in their tracks.

These actions serve as a reminder to the government that not everyone is a willing subverter of the Constitution and that some people do still respect human rights.

It is strange, though, that it should come from the one area of the government where obeyance to authority is unquestioned.

Sometimes you have to step out of your own mindset to declare the truth.

Alberto Gonzalez and John Ashcroft stand in front of a judge's high bench, each holding a hooded, shackled, orange-jumpsuited man by the arm. "Your Honor," they cry, "we bring this dangerous enemy combatant to be tried for espionage against America in the Court of Kangaroo!"

The judge, a pair of bifocals perched at the end of his long, very furry nose, peers down at the three. "Gentlemen, you have no standing here. This is the Court of Wallaby. G'day."

Gonzales blanches, and Ashcroft begins to sweat. "Your Honor, we call for an appeal to a higher court!"

The judge rolls his brown eyes and sighs. "Gentlemen, there IS no higher court. You were too cheap to set it up. In fact, you could barely afford to pay my salary here, what with all that you're doing 'over there'." He waves his paw at the door. "Begone, and take that infernal prison with you. This isn't your country, you know." He bangs his gavel and hops out of the courtroom.

This is another broadside fired by the military over the bow of the Bush administration. The military is the only governmental organization that is curtailing the executive branch’s unlawful grab for power. Overall, the military have been loyal to duty and oath whereas elected and appointed officials have been loyal to booty and oil.

It must be a very interesting time at the Pentagon, where the battle is surely at its peak. The “men” are putting the “boys” in their place, at least for the time being.

I recall Jose Padilla getting kicked around the system for years - when it looked like the administration was going to lose in one court system, they changed his "status" and locked him up in another system.

What's stopping the administration from doing the same here? Can't they just change the status of the detainees to "Unlawful" enemy combatants and send them right back to Col. Brownback?