Mark Levin sounds like a 5th grader, making up funny names for someone he don't like.

You sound like a 3rd grader for using "don't" instead of "doesn't" !!

> Mark Levin sounds like a 5th grader, making up funny names for someone he don't like.

Like "Coultergeist"? Or "Bill Orally"?

Levin: "If you're an American citizen you keep your habeas corpus rights."

Yes, but if the government comes and grabs you and then replaces your face with a new one (they can do that surgically now) and destroys all the evidence of your birth and life (birth certificate, SS card, driver's licenses et cetera) and then gives you new fingerprints and puts you in Guantanamo and says you're not an American, then you don't have rights.

Or something like that.

Just pull it out of your ass, Keith.

Wow, just crazy stuff.

SMG

I don't agree with him about MSNBC but MORE MARK LEVIN!

This web sites sucks.!!!! Bunch of propoganda shit!!!

Then go elsewhere and stop polluting this blogspace.

You sound like a 3rd grader for using "don't" instead of "doesn't" !!

Posted by: Jim at October 19, 2006 07:45 PM

doy doy dah doy doy.
I writes likes i talkses somtimzes!

I surz hopeses I dodm't puts myses foots im my mouth likes i done last night and gets my asses kicked by cecelia again. Peace be with you cecelia!

Let's see those that disagree with Mark Levin complain about his use of English. They immediately try to marginalize him on language since they cannot refute the points he makes.

If Mark and this site promote propaganda, then why not address that rather than making a hit and run... BECAUSE they can't.

The president of Iran believes Allah has chosen him to begin the first stages of Armageddon... he is on the verge of having the power to kill millions of people in the fraction of a second... there are people out there who believe they can go to heaven and have sex with virgins for cutting off our heads... there are people out there that will hide explosives in their infant's baby formula just to kill a few of us... there are people out there who get a hard on when they see American corpses mutilated... a nut job dictator just tested a thermonuclear device and is threatening to test more... and this piece of sh*t is scared because we refuse apply the US constitution to these non-American sub-humans when we actually catch them before they can kill us... and his head is stuck so far up his ass that he can't see the entire purpose of the Geneva conventions (that no terrorist group ever signed or agreed to) was not to protect these kinds of combatants, but to discourage every one of the tactics they use against us. I wonder how much of a wad Keith's pink laced panties will be in once the Caliphate is established.

... just saw the 8+ minute rant on you tube and had to vent...

My dear god,

You people will be the end of your country. To bad you were once a great nation but now your country is
one attack away from being a totalitarian state.

Good Luck
Fools

no need to apologize man! good job and well put.
olbermann and the leftards are only concerned with the "rights" of terrorists.

My dear god,

You people will be the end of your country. To bad you were once a great nation but now your country is
one attack away from being a totalitarian state.

Good Luck
Fools

Hehehe, nice foam from the mouth.
KO uses funny names for people he doesnt like too.
Why bash poor Chris Matthews man, "he made a funnee".

Mark Levin is a national treasure.

Was the clip running to fast or is Levin inhaling helium?

I should have posted this in this thread instead of the show thread.

From the WaPo.

"Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future."

Those 196 have no rights what so ever. If that Canadian journalist was still in the system, he would be still there.

From the Guardian Unlimited.

"Four years ago, Canadian Maher Arar was detained on a routine airport stopover in the United States. He ended up Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for 10 months.

Mr Justice Dennis O'Connor, who led the public inquiry, found that the police had passed faulty intelligence reports to US authorities that had "very likely" led to his arrest at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, and the beginning of Mr Arar's nightmare. He couldn't say for sure because the Americans refused to participate in the inquiry. Based on the flimsiest of evidence - the fact that he was an acquaintance of a man the Americans suspected of being a terrorist - the RCMP told American officials that Mr Arar was suspected of links to Al-Qaida."

Mr. Arar would still be in jail with Bush's new law and NOTHING could save him or prove his innocence.

This is wrong. It doesn't matter if the law only applies to americans. It is wrong and immoral.

Back at ya, Codas

Back at ya, Codas

What part of this do you liberal Olbermorons not understand?

Not only do American citizens keep their constitutional rights under this law, but a--holes like bin Laden (if we ever catch him) could appeal his status as an "enemy combatant" to the U.S. District Court in D.C. and if that doesn't work, to the Supreme Court.

How many rights would you like to grant to terrorists who enjoy blowing up hundreds of women and children at time?

Posted by: Cecelia at October 20, 2006 02:34 AM

"What part of this do you liberal Olbermorons not understand?

Not only do American citizens keep their constitutional rights under this law, but a--holes like bin Laden (if we ever catch him) could appeal his status as an "enemy combatant" to the U.S. District Court in D.C. and if that doesn't work, to the Supreme Court.

How many rights would you like to grant to terrorists who enjoy blowing up hundreds of women and children at time?"
=======

Can you people not read??? There is NO right of appeal for detention AT ALL! Not to any court unless and until the presidents appointee decides to actually charge you with something. Until then you have NO right to challenge your detention or status as an enemy combatant or one "who materially supports" an enemy according to the judgment of the president or his appointee. READ THE BILL before pontificating rubbish like the nonsense of Levin or Kondrake. You can be picked up and thrown in prison and by mistake easily as the ludicrous "no fly list" shows and you can not appeal to anyone or any court to challenge that unless you are actually charged which need not happen for the rest of your life. Meanwhile you can be waterboarded and subjected to sleep deprivation and injury up to just short of death or serious permanent injury and after a few months of that you will have named your grandmother as an enemy combatant let alone admitted to it yourself just for a few moments peace. If you and your grandmother are then charged on the basis of this "evidence" you can appeal sure but the government at the some discretion of the prosecutor can summarily stop any examination or cross examination of any witness (such as you) on the grounds of "national security". Evidence obtained by such coercion is of course explicitly allowed by the bill.
The terminally naive among you may fondly believe that this can not happen and that your beloved president would never do such a thing. That may or may not be true but it does NOT matter. The Whole point of the constitution of the USA was to make the country safe from government by tyranny even if the occupant of the executive office was so inclined. That was the point of "checks and balances" of congress and the courts. Congress has cast that role aside and granted plenary powers to the executive. If you are so happy that those powers now exist in the presidency consider for a moment how you would feel if Hillary Clinton had this power? Who might she decide was an "enemy combatant"?
It is not an accident that habeas corpus was the first right sought by those seeking freedom from tyranny because without the right to challenge your detention and force the state to show its case provided by habeas corpus all other rights are meaningless. It is no use to bleat that The bill does not apply to US citizens (in fact it explicitly does with respect to the "aiding" chapter) but whether it does or does not is irrelevant since without habeas corpus you can not challenge an assertion by the state that you are NOT a citizen. This is why the Great Writ Magna Carta makes no mention of this. In reality it granted most of the rights in the charter only to nobles but habeas corpus had to by definition be granted universally since the authors knew that otherwise the rest of the charter was meaningless. From that first seed of freedom all others flowed until the triumph of the declaration of independence, the constitution and the bill of rights. Strike habeas corpus for ANY person and it is in effect gone for all. This has been repeatedly argued by legal defenders of liberty successfully for 900 years whenever monarchs have tried to curtail it. It is why it is unequivocally and expressly protected in the constitution as being beyond the powers of congress to repeal except under circumstances that have clearly not been met here. This bill however seeks to prevent any possibility of review by any court that can challenge its constitutional standing by removing standing from any potential supplicant. Yet still you waffle on this board about how American citizens keep their constitutional rights! Without habeas corpus FOR ALL there is no habeas corpus for ANYONE since you can not challenge whether or not you fall into any category that purportedly still retains the right. To suggest otherwise is the most naive lunacy of the eternal optimist.

It is excruciatingly ironic that the same Republican Party that continually wants to ban flag burning and recoils in horror at suggestions that "under God" should be removed from the pledge of allegiance cheerfully voted to rip the entire meaning of the constitution of the Repblic itself to shreds.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Note it says ALL? Mow however, it that is reduced to "liberty and justice for those the president says can have it".
All of the rights of the constitution DEPENJD on habeas corpus. To not understand that is to ignore the most basic principles of logic.
To take an example of such naivety:

"Johnny Dollar" sarcastically writes above "Yes, but if the government comes and grabs you and then replaces your face with a new one (they can do that surgically now) and destroys all the evidence of your birth and life (birth certificate, SS card, driver's licenses et cetera) and then gives you new fingerprints and puts you in Guantanamo and says you're not an American, then you don't have rights.

Or something like that."

Even if he were right that the bill does in fact give protection to a citizen, he completely fails to appreciate that without habeas corpus FOE ALL he never gets to present any evidence of birth or fingerprints or SS card, drivers licence or anything else. There is no one to show this evidence to. The government doesn't need to destroy the evidence since they never need to justify his detention to any court unless they actually charge him. He can be detained forever unless and until that happens. His cries of "But you KNOW me! I serve you fries at the burger bar! You?ve met my MUM!!" Echo down the halls of Gitmo or wherever but no one cares cos the preznit said the "evil doer" sent an email once that talked about strangling an IRS agent that was after his tips. Clearly an enemy of the state!

I am sorry to have gone on so long but you must understand that we in the rest of the world watched in horror and amazement when this bill passed the senate. Until recently the US had rights that many countries envied. In England there is not even a clear right to silence for example there still is (barely) in Scotland but if the government were to even suggest withdrawing habeas corpus there would be riots in the streets INSTANTLY. I watched in awe the empty streets around the Capitol when the senate passed the bill and the pathetic straggle of the few true Americans left in your country protesting at the signing itself.
This was the country that said "Give me Liberty or give me Death!"? "Better Dead than Red"? Now so you can feel a wee bit safer huddled round your buckets of KFC from the chance of a "terrist" attack you hurl away the very essence of your country, its whole reason for existence. In his bullhorn speech or thereabouts Bush said "they attack us because they hate our freedoms" When he signed the bill he had the gall to say... Well Keith covered that already.
What a bunch of snivelling cowards you Americans have become, sending your children to fight in a war more than half of you know is pointless and always was, to defend with their blood and lives the freedom you cant even be bothered to understand let alone protest when it is taken from you by a smirking fool of a president that lies with practically every breath.

You have my pity and contempt. No doubt one day there will be some among you who deserve to be called American who will spill their blood to wrest freedom back from the tyrants that will rule you for the forseable future but history shows that once given up freedom is rarely regained without great sacrifice and effort unlikely to come from a country that sends its children to die for obvious lies and sends the bill for their war to their own grandchildren!

My God have you any idea how pathetic you look to the rest of the world?

"My God have you any idea how pathetic you look to the rest of the world?"
My God do your actually realize how much we don't give a good fuch about how we look..
this is not some klinton poll driven popularity game leftard.
what a rousing re-hash of olbermann's hysterics in support of the rights of terrorists. funny you mention theIRS- an entity that even does away with the pre-coviction assumption of innocence before guilt. Why didn't you mention the jack boot ATF agents too. You left wing traitors have no problem with Janet reno killing innocent womnen and children under the liberal interpetation of separation of church and state do you? Of course as as the good little liberal you are you love high taxes so you can have more "programs" and entitlements but are stonily silent on the rights and freesdoms that the liberlas have been stealing from this coutry since the end of WW2.
you are such a typical small minded liberal hypocrite with your pathetic attempt at "countrified" hick talk. I know that since us conservatives won't cut and run and provide comfort for the terrorists and of course won't allow your so called gay "marriage" you portray anybody that diasgrees with your self decscribed intelligensia as ignorant backwoods rednecks. What a little bigoted a--hole you are John.
you are no patriot just another little olbermann/kos /soros parrot with a computer who as a good little liberla cares more about the rights of people liike lyn stewart who give aid and comfort to the enemy. You laughingly try to describe yourself as a patriot yet you hate this country so much you would worry more about protecting those who would destroy it thatn those who work everyday to preserve it. You are so young and impressionable and ignorant you bought olbermann's hysterics hook line and sinker didn't you?
Let America lead and let the rest of the world follow.
you really ought to go back and read your post John and see how pathetic YOU sound to your country John. Let

WELL SAID! john at October 20, 2006 08:18 AM

Anonymous at October 20, 2006 08:43 AM
"Of course as as the good little liberal you are you love high taxes so you can have more "programs" and entitlements but are stonily silent on the rights and freesdoms that the liberlas have been stealing from this coutry since the end of WW2."

Hey! Anonymous at October 20, 2006 08:43 AM, can you give me some examples of rights and freedoms stolen by "liberalas"? There must be a hundred or so that you can cite.

Actually, the Branch Davidians were stormed because they refused to answer allegations of child abuse. They would have received Due Process if they had been kind enough to turn themselves in. Are you in favor of child molestation? If so, you fit right in with the Branch Davidians and the Republican party. Favorite pickup line: Come here Sonny and sit on my knee and I'll tell you about "liberlas".

John writes:

"Posted by: Cecelia at October 20, 2006 02:34 AM

"What part of this do you liberal Olbermorons not understand?...."

You've misattributed that post, John.

It was written by bigred, not me.

Every detainee that is at Guantanamo has the right to appeal his detention before a military tribunal. The detainee's lawyer - and they all have lawyers - presents the evidence of why he should not be held. The tribunal decides on whether the detention is proper or improper.

If the military tribunal upholds the detention, the detainee may appeal that decision to the US District Court in D.C.

That appellate court will hear that appeal. The detainee's lawyer - and again they all have lawyers - will present the evidence as to what the detention is improper to that court.

Never before in the history of this country have we allowed combatants that we have captured such rights.

Never.

In World War II, the US captured hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German soldiers.

Not one of them was allowed the rights to appeal their detention in a civilian court. In fact, when we captured German saboteurs who had landed onshore, FDR specifically issued a proclamation that stated that those enemy combatants did not have the right to civilian courts. That proclamation was upheld by the Supreme Court (in Quirin).

This is the first time in the history of this country that we permit enemy combatants to appeal their detention to a US civilian court.

Question for the critics: Should we give habeas corpus rights to EVERY enemy soldier or combatant that we capture from now on? If we engage in war with, say Canada in the year 2050 and we capture 200,000 Canadian soldiers during the war, must the US give an attorney and a civilian trial to EVERY one of those 200,000 enemy combatants?

Really?

SMG

WOW, so, let me get this straight: this guy is calling K.O. names because he *believes* GWB won't abuse this privilage?

Well guess what Levin, I *believe* you're a massive idiot.

Heartfelt Apologies to Cecilia for misattribution of bigred's post. I assumed the attribution was above not below the post Sorry!!

To Anonymous I think you have missed the fact that I am NOT an American I am expressing my sorrow for the wreck of the country that was once a beacon of hope and freedom for the world. The rest of your post was even more amusing. arguing as it does against a multidude of points I did not make nor expressed any favour for, while completely ignoring the arguments I did make.

The one argument you did make on point is where the whole issue resides. you say:
"what a rousing re-hash of olbermann's hysterics in support of the rights of terrorists"

The whole point here is that this has nothing to do with the rights of terrorists. If I call you a terrorist does that make you one? NO If I call you a terrorist you should have the right to say "Prove that or at least show why you have a reasonable suspicion that I am." In a democracy the FIRST priciple is that all are equal. If it were not me but the president calling you a terrorist it should in a democracy make no difference because "All men are created equal" whether the president or I were to call you a terrorist there should be no consequence to you unless at the very least a reasonable suspicion can be demonstrated that shows you have a case to answer. That was true in the US until Wednesday. Now after the MCA enactment if the president calls you a terrorist you can be detained without charge indefinately and can not challenge his assertion in any court. Don't believe me? Here are some quotes from the Military commisions act. that Robert Parry draws attention to

?Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,?

and:

"any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy [presumably U.S. military allies, such as Great Britain and Israel], shall be punished as a military commission may direct.

ANY PERSON! Still think it does not apply to US citizens? Who else but a US citizen can possibly be "in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States,"?
Ah you say but I can still appeal to the court I am a US citizen! Well.. no, as the act says:

"no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions."

Notwithstanding that lack of court oversight note that the act contains no provision for a "speedy trial" in fact no time limit at all so whether you could in fact defend yourself against the charge is immaterial since your chance to do so depends on the president deciding to actually press a charge against you. He has no incentive to do so since he can keep you locked up forever without ever letting you near any form of review whether court or Military commision. Should he bother to do so he does not need to let you see or hear the evidence against you which might well be evidence coerced from some other hapless individual. If I were arrested for example you can be sure Ill have you at the top of my list to finger as al qaeda's no 1 in the US as soon as they start pouring the water! You will never know of course who accuses you as again Parry points out
"Under the new law, the military judge "may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings" if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte - or one-sided - communications from the prosecutor or a government representative."

Now it could be me accusing you to get a few breaths of air or maybe an ex wife or girlfriend. perhaps some middle eastern 7-11 store manager you annoyed some time who got swept up in some purge, you will never know.

The record of the administration so far in actually bringing any of the thousands of detainees to any kind of trial is not encouraging. The Huge detainment camps built by Haliburton dont look too promising in terms of restraint in numbers the administration thinks it may have to detain either.
So do you see yet? its not the rights of terrorists I care about its YOUR rights not to be falsely accused of terrorism. Come some new attrocity the administration will act to sweep up all suspicious individuals you can bet. Based on some list that will no doubt be every bit as innacurate as the "no fly list".

In my country we went to war in 1939 to stand up for these rights against totalitarianism despite the prevailing wisdom at the time that we would be bombed by gas and our cities would be destroyed. Some were destroyed not by gas but none-the-less we went to war fully expecting such "WMD" attacks we did so because sometimes you have to risk death to stand for what is right. America stood by and let us take the full force of the axis powers alone until She herself was attacked at Peal Harbour and finally realized that in a war between totalitarianism and democracy you have to make a stand. You fought bravely and vigourously and saved democracy which we alone could not have done but the war never really touched your shores after Pearl and perhaps that is why the shock of 9-11 was so traumatic for you. For us who have seen whole cities wiped out without once considering throwing away our rights and freedoms it is astonishing that you fear a few terrorists capacity to do you harm so much that you simply surrender everything your country stood for in the name of safety. In the words of our Scottish "declaration of Arbroath" Our own 14th Century declaration of rights it says:

"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

This should be true for all honest men and women yet you gave yours up for fear alone. If al-qaeda were to kill a million of you it still would not be worth giving up your freedom as you have done, for the horror of tyranny is surely worse in the long run. The idea that the Military commisions act makes such a holocaust significantly less likely is absurd. Preventing such a horror would be better accomplished by enacting the practical precautions suggested by the 9-11 commission for a start but that has not been done. Don't you ever ask yourself why the administration chooses to destroy the entire constitution of the USA before taking even basic precautions to protect ports or monitor nuclear installations etc.? You really REALLY need to think that though, none of the plausible answers are comforting. A true conservative should be screaming in horror at this enormous increase in big govenment power. Where is all the talk of "Self reliance" and so on?

I know i am probably just wasting my time typing all this. You prorbably won't bother to read it anyway but I used to so admire America and these last few years have been like watching an old friend succumb to Alzheimer’s. America is now a drooling stumbling caricature of itself.
In the first world war they said of the brave men that fought under the command of the arristocratic idiots of the day that they were "Lions led by donkeys". At least Donkeys could see where they were going. Your brave soldiers are Lions led by mice too tiny in stature to see the path or avoid the dangers.

To SteveMG You make some good points but they are largely no longer true as I discuss in my note to Anonymous above. The primary problem with your point though is the assertion that the detainees are POWs, something the Bush administration hotly contests in any case but such a position is not tenable for a "war" that the Bush administration has said is likely to last for our lifetimes. The concept of a POW is sensible when a war has a forseable conclusion and when the enemey can be identified slimply by nationality. Even in time of war spies not so clearly identified since they may be traitors to their own nation are granted trial. We did not for example toss William Joyce, alias Lord Haw-Haw into jail for life without trial.We tried and convicted him and hung him. Even on its face your argument is flawed since 200,000 detainees would not in practice need 200,000 lawyers council would act for vast numbers at once charged with the same basic offence on the same basic evidence. Your analogy is not valid however, the nature of terrorism is specific targets and plots that would be charged as such. If you really think that there are going to be 200,000 terrorists to be detained then clearly the entire strategy is doomed. Sixty percent of Iraqi's support the insurgency and want to get America out of iraq so do you plan to detain 8 million iraqis? forget about the problem of legal council how are you going to cook for them?? The argument you make is a straw man. It is nonsence to compare soldiers captured in combat to civilians suspected of terrorism and suggest that the issues of rights can be so simply ignored. The issue of American Citizens suspected of "giving aid" to enemy's of the state remains and the power granted by the MCA means that anyone deemed by the president to have done so can be detained forever as is clearly shown above from the words of the act itself without ANY recourse to ANY hearing.

Anonymous:
I certainly understand why some people could be concerned with the policies re the treatment of these detainees. This is an enormously difficult issue that our previous laws and procedures cannot really adequately address.

But your statements that the president can simply detain "forever" anyone, US citizens included, he claims as giving aid and comfort to the enemy is simply and demonstrably false. It's just not true.

I'm not sure who told you this or where you read it but it's just not true.

Again, it must be noted again that detainees do indeed have the right to appeal their detentions.

You cite the MCA but do not mention the Detainee Treatment Act which provides safeguards to prevent the improper detention of innocent people.

Under the DTA, military tribunals can hear the appeals of all detainees. During these hearings, detainees' lawyers present evidence of the wrongful detention of their clients.

If the detainee can prove that he is an American citizen, the government must respect the habeas rights of that person and present evidence of any crime to a civilian court.

If the tribunal upholds the detention, the detainees can then appeal their detention to the US District Court of D.C.

If the district court upholds the detention, the detainee can still apply for a cert with the Supreme Court.

President Bush today cannot on his own simply grab any person he wants and hold them forever anymore than President Clinton (or any previous president) could do so either.

Sorry, but you've been given some misleading information.

There are more safeguards against the president improperly holding people today than at any time in the history of the country. None of the requirements cited above were in effect when, for example, FDR held and tried German enemy agents who were captured in New Jersey.

SMG

SteveMG
The "misleading information" is the text of the MCA itself. Read it. As to the DTA you clearly have not followed the provisions of the act look at the Hamdan case as an example. Granted cou8ncil ONLY on condition that he admitted his guilt? This is your idea of judicial safegaurd? The DTA is even more permicious than this in feneral practice as Jonathan Hafetz shows in his article for Jurist http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/what-detainee-treatment-act-really.php

"If, as the government argues, the DTA is applied to pending habeas corpus cases, it will allow for indefinite executive detention without any meaningful opportunity to rebut the government’s allegations, eviscerating a core guarantee of the Great Writ since common law."

Whatever you may think of Jonathan Hafetz No doubt a left wing pinko liberal if ever there was one by your criteria the facts of the cases discussed remain as they are independent of opinion.

"Just as startling is the government’s assertion that the DTA prevents a federal judge from ordering the release of innocent individuals. To be more precise, the government says that review under the DTA is limited to detainees who challenge a CSRT determination finding them “enemy combatants.” Individuals who the government concedes are not enemy combatants, but who nonetheless remain imprisoned at Guantánamo because they cannot safely be returned to their home countries, are therefore out of luck. No court, the government says, has the power to order these men’s release under the DTA, even if they do not present a danger to anyone. At least nine individuals are already in this permanent state of legal limbo, with more surely to follow. The legality of their detention is pending before another panel of the D.C. Circuit.

Denying a judicial remedy to these “non-enemy combatants” turns habeas corpus on its head. The writ has always provided two core guarantees: searching review into the legality of a prisoner’s confinement; and release when there is no lawful basis for the detention. The DTA fails on both accounts."

You state "There are more safeguards against the president improperly holding people today than at any time in the history of the country. None of the requirements cited above were in effect when, for example, FDR held and tried German enemy agents who were captured in New Jersey."

No this is simply false it is a typical "talking point" not backed by any legal opinion whatsoever and is self contradictory to boot. "FDR held and TRIED German enemy agents who were captured in New Jersey. Thus the government did indeed "produce the body" The DTA and MCA mean they no longer need to.
I understand your confusion The DTA and MCA for that matter contain many apparent safegaurds against false CONVICTION but to be convivted you have to first get to the stage of being TRIED and that is what is NOT provided for. As long as the administration does not press a charge you can be held INDEFINATELY. and as the act ensures EVEN if you can prove you are innocent they can STILL detain you as No court has the power to order release under the DTA. The Government is arguing NOW that the nine cases cited above are now outwith the reack of the courts as a result of the MCA provisions. This is true on the face of the provisions of the MCA which clearly states as I quoted in my last post

""no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions."

That is as clear as it gets DTA or no DTA your screwed!

People like yourself, Mort Kndrake and the idiot Levin Cited on this blog simply can not seem to grasp the difference between trial and appeal for conviction and habeas corpus which is simply the demand to tried in the first place. Without it you can be detained indefinately it is the whole point of the Great Writ to prevent that. Strike it down and that is the INEVITABLE consequence since your detention then depends exclusively on the largesse of the government.
With Habeas corpus > Government subject to the rule of law. WIthout habeas corpus Law subject to the whim of government. There IS no in between as has been proven over and over again throughout history.

You say "President Bush today cannot on his own simply grab any person he wants and hold them forever anymore than President Clinton (or any previous president) could do so either."

NO Bush CAN and Lincon briefly could to. All other presidents were subject to habeas corpus.
So Im sorry but YOU have been given some misleading information which is easy to do if you dont bother to read the actual laws themselves. As laws go they are pretty clear. Note also that Bush has ALWAYS stretched the executive power of the laws as they exist to the limit and beyond. The DTA and MCA at their MOST minimal reading privide the powers I describe in these posts and it is a fair bet that Bush will follow form and try to extend even those. bear in mind it is supposedly a "compromise" it was not what he really wanted. That never stopped him before. The Patriot act did not go far enough and explicitly prohibited precicely the type of wire tapping without warrant that Bush promptly engaged in. It is still impossible to see why he needed to for terrorist surveilance since he could to that instantly and get a warrant within a few days if there was indeed reason to tap. The only plausible reason for NOT seeking a warrant is because he wants to tap people he should not be tapping for purely political reasons and he does not want that exposed to any court no matter how secret. Contimually objections to the warrantless taps are characterized as objections to tapping terrorists. This is NOT the case tap anyone you suspect of being a terrorist just get a warrant a few days after you start by showing why you suspect there will be terrorists on that line.

It is always the same song from this admin break the law then change the law to make it legal. You can bet the MCA and DTA will be broken too and given the power they already provide that quite a horrible thought.