Unless the Bingaman amendment is introduced Tuesday instead of Monday, or hilzoy has something up her sleeve, I think this is the last post we are going to be able to do on this subject. It will also be the shortest.14, 15, 16, 17.]
Second: you may be saying "you make some good points, but this is complicated and I'm not sure I completely agree." Or maybe even: "are you nuts?!!? You think I have time to read thirteen posts on this?" Well. If there is not enough time for you to even read all these posts--how in the hell is one hour on Thursday, and maybe a few more hours tomorrow, enough time for the Senate to deliberate on this bill? Why on earth is this being pushed through on an appropriations bill, with no hearings, no debate, on the strength of arguments that are (deliberately or inadvertantly) quite misleading? When the Senators providing the margin of victory seem unaware of some key facts and of the legal implications of what they're doing? We're talking about habeas corpus here. We're talking about indefinite detention under conditions that have prompted a large number of suicide attempts. We're talking about serious charges of abuse. We're talking about human beings, some of whom are terrorists and some of whom aren't--some of whom even the pathetic CSRT process has determined are innocent. Could we maybe wait a few weeks, hold a hearing or two, have some real negotiations?
Third: if you agree, if not with our conclusions, than at least that this is maybe important and complicated enough that we could stand to wait a few weeks, please call your senators, and ask them to vote for Jeff Bingaman's S. AMDT 2517 to bill S. 1042. And please consider asking other people to do the same.
p.s. thanks to the regular authors here for being good sports about the temporary hijacking. carry on. --K