Circuit Judge sanctions torture

So we’ve covered that the White House is saying that if they really really need to waterboard people, they have that option available. They’ve done it before, and they might do it again. But don’t worry, because apparently waterboarding isn’t actually torture.

Now I know what a lot of you are thinking. No, that’s wrong. Waterboarding really IS torture. Frankly, you’d be right. No matter how the White House tries to spin it, waterboarding is torture. However, that’s a moot point anyway, because a circuit judge just ruled that… wait for it… torture is okay.

In a 43-page opinion, Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law. The Court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that “torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants.” Finally, the Court found that, even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantánamo had any constitutional rights.

Where to begin. First off, I find it amusing that the Constitution does not apply to these detainees, neither do international agreements. They’re apparently in a legal black hole, which makes me wonder what’s stopping us from torturing them with reckless abandon (or rather, admitting to it). Secondly, since when did ignorance mean innocence? Because they didn’t know that the detainees had rights, it’s fine to torture them?

Finally, read that highlighted part. Then read it again. Then you might want to take a few Motrins. Here’s my question to Karen Lecraft. If torture is a “foreseeable consequence” when we detain enemy combatants, who in the hell does she think articles like the Geneva Conventions are intended to protect? Enemy noncombatants? Non-enemy combatants?

“Economic Stimulus” plan stopped in Senate

I was not really big on the economic stimulus plan, although the Democrats in the Senate managed to make me like it a little more by boosting the amount given to disabled vets and the elderly. And hey, whenever Senate Republicans filibuster something I tend to know I should like it.

The Senate version would provide $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples, but it would double the size of the eligibility caps. The working poor, some of whom may not pay any income taxes, would be eligible for the same checks, as would seniors and disabled veterans with $3,000 in Social Security or veterans benefits. Businesses would be offered investment tax incentives and would be allowed to write off more losses, which drew the support of large corporations.

On another source I’d found this on, the writer pointed out that the Democrats are in the “difficult position” of either blocking it entirely or conceding. This is what drives me goddamn crazy about the Democratic/Republican image.

The GOP filibusters something, and the Democrats have to worry about being labeled obstructionists if they don’t fold. Think about that for a moment. The suggestion was that the Democrats would be seen as blocking legislature after Republicans filibuster it. I just don’t know what the hell people are thinking sometimes. And it’s that same line that is the reason Democrats keep crumbling under pressure.

Stick a fork in Romney, he’s done.

I’m watching Mitt Romney speak at the CPAC on MSNBC right now. He just said “if I fight on… I’d be making it easier for Senator Obama or Clinton to win”. After going on and on about how Clinton or Obama will declare defeat in the “war on Terror”, he declared defeat.

I have to admit that’s a peculiar tactic. He’s dropping out because if he doesn’t he thinks Clinton or Obama will have a better chance of winning. I have no idea how in the world that’s supposed to work, frankly. It’s not like a vote for Romney in the primary takes away from McCain in the general.

I agree with Brian Williams. It was an “interesting” speech. He said he cannot let his campaign aid a “surrender to terror”, which I assume refers back to his whole “make it easier for those Defeatocrats” shtick.

MSNBC’s calling it “suspending” his campaign, according to the ticker, but don’t kid yourselves. He’s out. Now we’re down to Huckabee and McRage. But it’s not like Huckleberry is going to offer much of a challenge now. McCain is a lock for the nomination now. It comes down to who the Dems are going to put up againts ‘im.

Lieberman stripped of SuperDelegate status

I believe the internet term for this type of thing is “owned”. You read that right, Holy Joe has lost his status as a Superdelegate.

Lieberman’s endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.

Miller, then a Democratic senator from Georgia, not only endorsed Republican George Bush four years ago, but he delivered a vitriolic attack on Democrat John Kerry at the Republican National Convention.

Good on you, Democrats of Connecticut. That’s the price you pay, Holy Joe. You want to turn your back on your party, go for it. Might as well just make it official and call yourself a Republican next time.