No longer 'just a bill on Capitol Hill', 'anti-terror' law

[mburbank]

That's not a bad idea, but it'll never happen.

And Preech, it is ucharacteristically niave of you to think that congressman and senators read the legislation. Sure, some did, maybe even most (and that's a maybe) but repreentatives admit with appaulling regularity that they have not read legilsation they vote on.

What I would rather have is immaterial and I've already said it anyway, but I'll say it again. I would much rather have an ongoing fight for legislation that more accurately reflects what I think are key aspects to American Democracy, instead of a fight for what is politically expedient at this precise moment in time. As I've said before, this is Profies in Courage time, and what we're getting is profiles in ass coverage. Yes, without an agreement on legislation, the President has and will continue to torture, kidnap and hold without charge indeffinitely, but with the possability that he would be eventually held accountable. Now he'll do all of that a weensy bit less legally, and legal precedent has been set for future presidencies.

There will never be a war crimes trial for Bush, wether I'd like one or not. And I don't want 'everything' to do with the war retroactively anything. I would like to see gross violations of standing law actually matter, so that we don't codofy the idea that the President is above the law. The administration violated Fisa. The administration tortured people, which is against the law. All the debates about those issues are at very best extremely weak. The ONLY retoractive anything happening here is retroactive legalization, a highly dubious practice. The laws that have been broken already exist. Looking for a President who is required to obey the law is not government by and for me, it's the American way.

Do you or do you not think it is important for a President to obey the law?