more

The more I read about this detainee bill, the more I don not like it. Not only do I dislike the Bill, but I think the reasons why the Bill is being pushed through quickly are entirely political. Why is it that a democrat cannot raise concerns about the passage of this Bill without facing condemnation from the Republicans that he is soft on terror. Isn't it possible that those two concerns are not mutually exclusive. A person could wish to fight terror and even wish for a Bill to clarify exactly what powers the executive has, while at the same time not want to pass this Bill. The way campaigns are run now make it impossible for candidates to actually voice nuanced positions without being rolled over by broad and mostly false smear campaigns. I am not saying that there are not some Democrats that are soft on terror, and even if I did not want to get into this war in Iraq, we are there now and have to figure out how to deal with the consequences, but right now we can't even have a discussion.

Some more reading One from the New York Times editorials and one from the other side's perspective, well, I went to Foxnews.com to find a story on the passage of the detainee Bill and guess what: I couldn't find a single story discussing today's debate on the Bill. Either they don't think that this is an important issue, or they would never report anything that might question the President's authority under this new Bill. Maybe the New York Times just likes the futility of reporting on a Bill that has not chance of not being passed. Ahh, I have to go to class now and the more I follow this story, the more frustrated I get. (I entreat anyone to point me to articles, blogs, etc. that think the passage of this Bill as it is is really good)