1) Read THIS.
2) Think.

ABSTRACT:

This paper attempts to set out some general parameters for coming to grips with a central homeland security concern: the effort to make potential targets invulnerable, or at least notably less vulnerable, to terrorist attack. It argues that protection makes sense only when protection is feasible for an entire class of potential targets and when the destruction of something in that target set would have quite large physical, economic, psychological, and/or political consequences. There are a very large number of potential targets where protection is essentially a waste of resources and a much more limited one where it may be effective.

A story in The Times of London.

The US defense department has outlined new rules that could allow terror suspects to be imprisoned [or sentenced to death] on the basis of hearsay or coerced testimony.

(01/18/2007 draft of the manual)

Chris Anders, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel writes on the “…long haul to fix the Military commissions Act.”
from the ACLU Blog post:

Thanks to Congress, detainees at Guantanamo lost the due process protection that the Supreme Court said that they had. The Military Commissions Act eliminates the habeas corpus protection to have a court decide if a detainee is being held legally or illegally. It is the most basic due process protection in the Constitution–and Congress took it away by a vote of 51-48 in the Senate. Without habeas, there is a much greater chance that detainees being held indefinitely will once again fall outside the protection of the rule of law.

Now a new Congress is gearing up to address this part of the Military Commissions Act. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has made repeal of the habeas-stripping section a top priority, and has introduced a bill with the highest ranking Republican on his committee, Senator Arlen Specter, to do just that. On the House side, the new House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers is also ready to have Congress reverse course and protect habeas due process protections.

ACSBlog:

Constitutional Scholars Join Letter Asserting Congress Has Power to Stop Escalation

Twenty-one legal scholars, including many who served as constitutional advisors to the President, have joined a letter to House and Senate leadership outlining Congress’ broad powers to limit the commander-in-chief (pdf available here).

As of now the link from ACSBlog is not working well so I have mirrored the PDF file locally.

The New York Daily News is reporting President Bush has quietly claimed the right to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant.

Bush has issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open people’s mail without a judge’s warrent under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and in direct contradiction to the bill he had just signed.

“You have to be concerned,” agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush’s claim. “It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we’ve ever known.”

This from the man we have vested with the responsibility to protect and defend the constitution and laws of the United States.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that John Negroponte will step down from his post as “Intelligence Czar” to take a post as Deputy Secretary of State.

Can’t wait to see how Bush spins this one.

We need to remind Bush what his job is.

Whenever I hear the president mention, oh, every 12 minutes, that his greatest responsibility is “to protect the American people,” the insufferable civics robot inside my head mutters: “Actually, sir, your oath, the one with the Bible and the chief justice and the Jumbotron, is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. For the American people are not mere flesh whose greatest hope is to keep our personal greasy molecules intact; we, sir, are a body politic — with ideals.”

excerpt from:

Down With Torture! Gimme Torture!
By SARAH VOWELL
Published: February 5, 2006
The New York Times

Hey! I’m back!

Unfortunately just in time to post the full text of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Just passed by Congress and on its way for approval by The President.

Another blow to freedom, and another step toward Bush’s police state.

I wonder how long it will be until those who oppose the current regime are branded terrorists and jailed without trial?

[via: Marty Lederman's post at Balkinization]

Here is a thought provoking analysis of the recent controversy surrounding Bush’s signing statements.