Or should that be zero and ... how'd that first hundred days work out for you, Nancy?
The new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee dealt a blow to the human-rights community by failing to include provisions to overhaul GOP legislation governing military tribunals in the 2008 defense authorization bill.
The chairman’s move is attracting criticism from some who say Democrats’ dedication to the issue is wavering.


"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is supporting Skelton’s efforts to move forward with a stand-alone bill, according to a Pelosi aide."
Yup. By not playing politics with the bill and railroading it through Congress glued to Defense Authorization, I agree that Nancy Pelosi has really dropped the ball on this issue.
Why, President Bush will simply veto the bill, allowing Gitmo and other US torture-prisons to remain open till '09 when a new President (say, President Hillary) gets to decide what to do with all that newfound power.
All in all, I can see how this would leave a great many people very, very, very distraught.
Posted by: Zifnab | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 02:02 PM
Zifnab if the Dem leadership was truely interested in "human rights" they would have attached the two and forced the issue. The fact that they aren't willing to fight tooth and nail for it at every oppertunity shows that maybe they don't really consider it a priority. That kind of sums up the Dems long on rhetoric short on follow through.
Posted by: southdakotaboy | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 02:46 PM
"Zifnab if the Dem leadership was truely interested in "human rights" they would have attached the two and forced the issue."
Funny, I think you're full of crap Southy. If they'd attached the bill to the Defense Budget, right-wingers would be screaming and crying and shitting their jeans over how we're letting the terrorists win by giving them due process.
I think the Dems know which fights to pick and which fights can wait. And they know which votes, when held out alone and by themselves, will seperate the Americans from the hate-Americans. Voting for or against Habeaus Corpus is an excellent litmus test for the 2008 elections to decide which Senators and Congressmen care about our Constitution and which just like watching brown people covered in menstral fluid.
Think of it like a Flag Burning or Fag Beating Constitutional Amendment vote, except it'll actually mean something.
Posted by: Zifnab | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 03:52 PM
--Gitmo and other US torture-prisons--
The worst torture in this hemisphere is being subjected to the BS you spew on this site, zifknob.
Posted by: ET | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 03:56 PM
Well Zifnab if you guys on the lib side of things want to make an election issue about giving suspected terrorists the same rights as American citizens thats a fight I think the right will win hands down. You guys will get spanked on that issue. So ya go ahead with that one all the way buddy.
Posted by: southdakotaboy | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Ziffy, I sincerely hope you are right. I pray that the Democrats put a bill up to allow terrorists and foreign fighters to use our judicial system. If that is what Democrats believe should be done with these guys, then they need to man up and introduce that legislation. Because the terrorists already have due process, which is included in the military tribunals set up by the Congress. The Supreme Court is apparently satisfied that due process was provided.
Posted by: templar knight | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 04:18 PM
"Because the terrorists already have due process, which is included in the military tribunals set up by the Congress."
I do not think "due process" means what you think it means.
Traditionally, due process requires that you be provided with an independent defense attorney, access to witnesses and evidence, and the right to confront your accuser. The military tribunals provide for none of these.
I welcome the fight between Constitution-hating Kagaroo Courtists and true Americans.
Posted by: Zifnab | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 05:10 PM
Zifnab I don't think "true Americans" means what you think it means.
Posted by: southdakotaboy | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 05:15 PM
"...watching brown people covered in menstral fluid."
What? What? What does a bunch of black blues musicians drooling on their guitars and banjos have to do with beating fags?
Posted by: Phoenix | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 07:28 PM
Ah yes, Ziftard mentions the menstral claims and proves he is an Islamofascist lover.
Some whackjob released from Gitmo made up many ridiculous stories about how he was tortured. One was that a woman stood over him and menstrated on him. Too bad the story was proven to be a blatant lie. But Ziftard, in his anti-American zeal is only too eager to believe it.
Posted by: Hard Right | Friday, May 11, 2007 at 12:36 AM
My point was lost. Minstrel -• a member of a band of entertainers with blackened faces who perform songs and music ostensibly of black American origin.
It's 'menstrual'.
I don't know why the military doesn't use this. Like dropping B52 loads of pork chops on madrassa playgrounds, we could get a bunch of menstruating women to walk through Baghdad wearing signs: "I am on the rag." Then when all the bad men run screaming out of town, we could blow them up.
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, May 11, 2007 at 12:51 PM