Two snippets struck me from the September 26, 2006 R. Jeffrey Smith-written Washington Post article about the Big Three (McCain, Graham and Wartner) and their ‘stand’ against the Bush-aholics on torture:
“…As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, ‘has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States’…”
and
“…The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week’s version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators…”
Okay, who wants to be the first to charge George W. Bush as an unlawful combatant?
It certainly seems that he “has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its military allies.”
The NIE itself, played up so prominently recently, contains substantive analysis that the invasion of Iraq has worsened the battle against terrorism. Suppose that qualifies as aiding and abetting hostilies against the United States?
Or am I employing ‘tortured’ logic here?
My Gawd, does that mean I have become one of t-h-e-m?
Help!!! I’m an unwilling participant in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers 3.” I guess I went to sleep one night and woke up as an acolyte of Generalissimo Gonzalez and Presidente Bush.