What better way to keep people in line than to let them know that they can be arbitrarily detained for no reason, locked up, and have no due process? This has been the real reason that Bush has let us know what is going on. He wants people to be afraid, very afraid. Fear is what controls most people, and this is no different.

The Nazis would kill at a ratio of 100 to 1 if one of there soldiers were killed in occupied France, during WW II. Arbitrary killings of civilians. A great way to instill fear, of retribution.

This is simply Naziism lite. Don't kill them outright, but lock them up, and throw away the key. And let them know that's what you are going to do. Pacify them with fear. If an American can be held without charge for years, even one with dark skin, then any American can be held.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

By Greenwald's definition, we would have no right to arrest enemy spies here in America during wartime, nor would we have any basis for capturing enemy soldiers who happened to be, say, traveling to an R&R facility behind their own lines ...

Does he really expect intelligent people to take him seriously?

You have been accused of spying during wartime (by an unimpeachable source, whose reward bounty had no influence over the process, we assure you). Therefore, it's off to a "black site" prison with you -- forever -- no hearing, no trial.

What? You're innocent, you say? Sure, that's what they all say.

Remember, the Good Guys never, ever make mistakes.

First you say this, Pacify them with fear.

Then this, Be afraid, be very afraid.

Do you see no irony here?

By Greenwald's definition, we would have no right to arrest enemy spies here in America during wartime, nor would we have any basis for capturing enemy soldiers who happened to be, say, traveling to an R&R facility behind their own lines -- we could only call them "enemy combatants" if we caught them firing weapons. Similarly, action against enemy propaganda mills would be improper, as the writers and purveyors of such propaganda are not "fighting against the US." The only people who are fighting against the US, according to Greenwald, are those who are actually shooting, and they're only fighting against the US at the very moment that they're shooting.

Does he really expect intelligent people to take him seriously?

As Jordan said, it really is hard to believe that someone can be this stupid.

Do you really not understand the difference between (a) requiring a Government to give someone a hearing before locking them away and (b) prohibiting the Government from locking someone away?

As is painfully obvious, (a) and (b) are fundamentally different. I argued (a). Yet you came and claimed I argued (b). I'm honestly interested in knowing the thought process in your brain that leads you to confuse those two things.

The point about them being captured in their homes, not being captured shooting weapons on a battlefield, is that the risk of error or worse is higher, thus heightening the need to have the Government prove the accusations are true before locking them away for life.

How can people not understand these most basic ideas? I'm not asking how you can fail to agree with them. I understand that authoritarians will always favor unlimited power in their Leaders. I'm asking how you can fail to understand so completely the argument that I made.

That is the point.

Greenwald wants us to believe that John Yoo's claim that Guantanamo's detainees were captured "fighting against the US" is false because they were not carrying weapons or engaged in actual battle at the moment they were arrested.

The examples Glenn cites rather refutes that possibility, doesn't it?

What's objectionable here is not Yoo's dissembling, but Greenwald's laughable casuistry in his definition of "fighting against the US."

Pray tell?

By Greenwald's definition, we would have no right to arrest enemy spies here in America during wartime, nor would we have any basis for capturing enemy soldiers who happened to be, say, traveling to an R&R facility behind their own lines

Except none of that is what is at issue in these examples, it is?

we could only call them "enemy combatants" if we caught them firing weapons.

I don't recall that ever being suggested or argued, here or elsewhere.

Similarly, action against enemy propaganda mills would be improper, as the writers and purveyors of such propaganda are not "fighting against the US."

A severe reach, particularly in light of revelations about the Pentagon's own concerted propaganda efforts.

The only people who are fighting against the US, according to Greenwald, are those who are actually shooting, and they're only fighting against the US at the very moment that they're shooting.

Well, "combat" has traditionally involved direct military actions (ie. men and women in uniform shooting at one another). Stretching the definition of "combatant" to include those individuals say producing, disseminating and receiving what you might deem as 'propaganda' risks entering a legal gray area where everyone is at risk of being deemed 'enemy combatants'.

Does he really expect intelligent people to take him seriously?

Intelligent people already do. Its you and yours we've essentially written off due to the chronic cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome you're suffering from.

Actually, this is just the sort of legal word-parsing that we can now expect American soldiers to have to face when defending their legitimate execution of American policy.

What is and isn't "legitimate" is a bit fuzzy these days thanks to Professor Yoo and his novel theories, never mind the wholesale law-breaking the Administration has itself acknowledged to be undertaking in its domestic surveillance operations.

At this point, claiming one's actions are "legitimate" is an invitation for a laugh-track, nothing more.

>In his fevered quest to find something, anything, with which to accuse those who correctly identify the insanity of the Boumediene decision, Greenwald has accurately illustrated one of the reasons why it's insane.

"Insane" is an equally fuzzy term, given circumstances and what is under discussion.

Ignoring seven centuries of legal precedent, which has served us all well through far greater crises and gives greater legitimacy to government actions over vague pronouncements, in favor of the vanity of a messianic nihilist and his sour-souled retainers doesn't sound terribly 'sane' does it?

But then again, you're the one naming yourself after a vegatable. 'Sanity' clearly isn't a given, with you or Bush.