The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States.

And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights. This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Those of us trying to resist the Bush administration's seizure of permanent emergency powers have so far failed to alert the American public of the immense danger to their basic liberties that this administration represents. Maybe this story in the Washington Post today will help wake America up. How do I put this in words as clearly as possible. If the U.S. government decides, for reasons of its own, that you are an "illegal enemy combatant," i.e. that you are someone who "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States," they can detain you without charges indefinitely, granting you no legal recourse except to a military tribunal, and, under the proposed bill, "disappear" and torture you. This is not just restricted to aliens or foreigners, but applies to U.S. citizens as well. It can happen anywhere in the U.S. at any time. We are all at potential risk. Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider.

"No one can be held indefinitely, and if they are, they have a right to go in front of a magistrate or a judge and demand that the judge make a determination as to whether they're charged with a crime and whether there's any real evidence to hold them. And if there is not, the magistrate, the judge, can order the king, the police, the FBI, or anyone, or George W. Bush, the President of the United States, to let him go. That's what habeas corpus is. Without it, we are virtually slaves to a police state."

In an December 2002 story in the Washington Post, then-Solicitor General Ted Olson described the anarchy at the heart of the process with admirable frankness:

"[There is no] requirement that the executive branch spell out its criteria for determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant," Olson argues.

"'There won't be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this,' Olson said in the interview. 'There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances.'"

For in addition to the dictatorial powers of seizure and torment given by Congress on Thursday to George W. Bush - powers he had already seized and exercised for five years anyway, even without this fig leaf of sham legality - there is a far more sinister imperial right that Bush has claimed - and used - openly, without any demur or debate from Congress at all: ordering the "extrajudicial killing" of anyone on earth that he and his deputies decide - arbitrarily, without charges, court hearing, formal evidence, or appeal - is an "enemy combatant."

With the elections only a month away, we talk to John Fund, Wall Street Journal writer and author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy. Fund talks about high-tech problems with electronic voting machines, more mundane problems with ineligible voters and phony ballots, and the general slackness and incompetence that have made our voting system one that can only aspire to the high standards of Mexico.

The Military Commissions Act allows the government to seize these people off the streets and detain them because they are non-citizens, and, by accusing them of being unlawful enemy combatants, throw them into a parallel system where neither habeas corpus nor the Bill of Rights apply. It takes even resident aliens who have lived in the country for years out of the criminal justice system and into the world of military prisons and CIA interrogations. The MCA allows the government to make mistakes-- very grievous mistakes-- in detention and interrogation that will severely harm these people and that it may never have to account for. A system of laws that can do this-- even if its primary victims are not citizens-- is inconsistent with the principles of a democratic republic.

JM - please, find a way to allow comments by people you see all the time that does not require you to review each one.

... the case could be made that live card rooms will benefit because players will be shut out from online poker rooms.

Actually the casinos love online gambling because it teaches people the games.

I disagree with those who say that the president is not asking any sacrifices of Americans in the war on terror. He is asking us to give up the liberties that were our birthright.

Our actions must be guided by our own values, not those of terrorists. Torture is not an American value, and neither is imprisoning someone without due process.

All of this is bad enough - a sickening and cowardly surrender of liberty not seen in a major Western democracy since the Enabling Act passed by the German Reichstag in March 1933. But it is by no means the full extent of our degradation.
...
That's right; from the earliest days of the Terror War - September 17, 2001, to be exact - Bush has claimed the peremptory power of life and death over the entire world. If he says you're an enemy of America, you are. If he wants to imprison you and torture you, he can. And if he decides you should die, he'll kill you. This is not hyperbole, liberal paranoia, or "conspiracy theory": it's simply a fact, reported by the mainstream media, attested by senior administration figures, recorded in official government documents - and boasted about by the president himself, in front of Congress and a national television audience.
...
In other words, what is safe to do or say today might imperil your freedom or your life tomorrow. You can never know if you are on the right side of the law, because the "law" is merely the whim of the Leader and his minions: their "instincts" determine your guilt or innocence, and these flutterings in the gut can change from day to day. This radical uncertainty is the very essence of despotism - and it is now, formally and officially, the guiding principle of the United States government.

"The Democrats that defected were virtually all Democrats that are running for re-election ... "They don't want to be viewed as weak on a national security question."
...
... 80 percent of the Democrats in the Senate voted against the detainee bill, which could be used as ammunition for Republicans to accuse Democrats of being soft on terror.

The American Gaming Association, which represents casino operators based in Las Vegas and elsewhere, had asked Congress to fund a commission that would study whether online gambling can be regulated and taxed in the U.S. The lobby group's hope is a study may eventually let major casino operators such as MGM Mirage and Harrah's Entertainment Inc. enter the online business.

With President Bush poised to sign the White House-backed detainee treatment bill into law, groups are promising to challenge it in court "in days." "I don't think there's a snowball's chance in 'H' that this will be found constitutional," Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told Congressional Quarterly (sub. req.). CCR represents a number of Guantanamo prisoners. Strangely, some senators who voted for the bill weren't convinced of its constitutionality. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who voted for the bill even after his amendment to preserve certain rights for detainees was defeated, called the proposal "patently unconstitutional on its face," The Washington Post reported. When CQ asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who negotiated with the White House to win minor concessions on the legislation, if the bill was constitutional, he responded "I think so."

This all looked very unhealthy, I could only imagine what it was doing to them psychologically. I had the striking thought that this was all completely unforgivable. These adults, no matter their intentions, were performing horrific acts of mental child abuse.

An enormous ring of superconducting magnets similar to a particle accelerator could fling satellites into space, or perhaps weapons around the world, suggest the findings of a new study funded by the US air force. Proponents of the idea say it would be much cheaper than conventional rocket launches. .... Previous studies have investigated the use of magnets to accelerate satellites to the high speeds required for launch. But most have focused on straight tracks, which have to gather speed in one quick burst. Supplying the huge spike of energy needed for this method has proven difficult. The advantage of a circular track is that the satellite can be gradually accelerated over a period of several hours. And the setup is technologically feasible and cost effective, suggests a recent, preliminary study of the idea funded by the air force's Office of Scientific Research. The air force has now given the go-ahead for more in-depth research of the idea. The two-year study will begin within a few weeks and be led by James Fiske of LaunchPoint Technologies in Goleta, California, US. The launch ring would be very similar to the particle accelerators used for physics experiments, with superconducting magnets placed around a 2-kilometre-wide ring.