That really is upsetting. I had some respect for Snowe, a smart articulate woman from Maine, alas most of that respect is gone, what was she thinking?

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

That's the US COnstitution, folks. As far as I know, we have neither been invaded, nor is there any sort of Rebellion underway.

Anyone else get the feeling this legislation is all about how to deal with the coming rebellion? I.e. the one that sane citizens are going to have to foment to counteract these blatant acts of tyranny?

Sad. Time to re-read the Declaration of Independence.

At least, the more insane the "compromise" is, the more likely it will be struck down.

Has the complete bill vote happened?

Couldn't their have been a fillibuster on the amendment? Or on the whole bill?

I probably don't really understand the options available, but a No Vote doesn't seem like enough.

In my mind, I feel like I'm writing a letter to Santa: Please "Liberal" Court(s), save us from our government as they continue to pass laws which further distroy our founding principles. I left some cookies and milk here for you and your aides.

A.D. 1215... anyone??? anyone???

I heard Tom Oliphant on Al Franken's show this morning say that he keeps hearing from Democratic congresspersons that they're "kicking the can down the road" -- that is, they're staying quiet now, and trusting that the courts will fix it.

That may have some sort of short-term political appeal, to those afraid that standing up for the Constitution would hurt them in the polls (wtf?!), but in any other sense, it's pretty damn risky.

First, the courts would only strike down the parts of the bill that they actually decide is against the Constitution. The rest will be left intact. For example, is it safe to assume that the ability of the President to define torture would be ruled unconstitutional? How about the parts that indemnify those who have already committed it?

More importantly, it could take a while for any legal cases to reach the Supreme Court. By then, Bush could well have gotten another imperial-presidency-is-ok judge on the bench, for a total of 5 (the other 4 being Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts). Which would likely mean that the Court would see no problem with this law at all.

Apparently, and unfortunately, this skull is America. America being viewed by the real world with disgust, fear, amazement, and confusion. We truly are heading down the same road as Rome.I have already told my loved-ones that if I turn up missing where to begin the search.

Our elected leaders should be, all of them, ashamed and saddened by this their greatest and latest folly following an Ideolog whose former highest clam to fame was to decided to go AWOL during the Viet Nam struggle ursurped only by his infamous round of golf after receiving the greatest threat ever handed to such a dull witted President. Heck of a job Congress....

He should have filibustered, but still.

Senator Barack Obama eloquently stated today:

I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here. I realize that soon, we will adjourn for the fall, and the campaigning will begin in earnest. And there will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be called everything from cut-and-run quitters to Defeatocrats to people who care more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that the vote before us was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to that fire.

And yet, while I know all of this, I'm still disappointed, and I'm still ashamed. Because what we're doing here today - a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused - should be bigger than politics. This is serious.

Instead of allowing this President--or any President---to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.

And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus--the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance--one single chance--to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.

But politics won today. Politics won. . . .

And the disgrace of the nation will live in history. History will not absolve the President or the Congress on this shameful day. History will not absolve the United States of America. Today we betrayed our values in an exercise of cynical political calculation and blatant fear.

How can so many legislators lack the imagination to see how these laws could be abused??? If not by this President, by future Presidents?

This is how we must counter spin this: President Hilary Clinton is going to use these laws to imprison YOU for being politically incorrect.

If any judge finds against it they'll probably declare the judge an enemy combatant for siding with the terrorists against the president & ship the judge off...

True President Hillary could use these laws in the future, possibly for payback, who knows. But why do I think a Bush-stacked Supreme Court will deny her this. The Republicans seem to have all the bases covered.

Given our propensity to invade other nations and to foment un-democratic resistance to democracy when it serves corporate purposes, I was always uneasy about "we're-the-greatest-nation-on-Earth" rhetoric. But our Constitution was an example to other parts of the world, and it mostly worked here after the 19th Amendment – and especially with the Warren Court.

But I can't stand it anymore. We're not great. We're not even good. We tell the rest of the world to suck up or fuck off. We produce almost no goods for export. And we are throwing out the only decent principles we used to hold. We are a drunk, reckless, hypocritical and violent nation, with a population that lives mostly in some fantasy land where standards change daily in order to keep us the “good guys.”

Even our opposition party isn't that. Obama's quote above is great evidence. This is as angry as our great liberal hope can get? "We could have sold out only halfway, by simply rolling back habeas corpus." Gee, thanks Obama. And yes, I noticed how you courteously acknowledged that it's election season and compromise is to be expected. Gutless bastard.

There should have been a filibuster. And then there should be a trial for Bush et al. But instead, I'm the enemy because I stand up for the rule of law.