This is at the very core of my opposition to Mr. Bush. What underlies the secret detention of humans, as well as its concomitant unlawful and obscene mistreatment of humans detained under the authority of the American flag is cowardice, and an preponderate lack of faith in our system of government. Persons who have solemnly sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution claim that the President's war powers exist outside of Constitutional strictures.

There is one word which properly describes this: Tyranny. It must be resisted; for America's future, because it is a frontal assault upon the very foundations of the United States.

This is not an exaggeration. Consider The US Constitution; Article. VI.; clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Geneva Conventions clearly are treaties which were made "under the Authority of the United States", therefore they are the Supreme Law of the Land. A high contracting party in the Geneva Conventions cannot abrogate them during a time of war. The Bush Administration's weaseling "unlawful combatant" class clearly violates the Conventions. Judges are bound to decide cases within the Constitutional framework. Those who have acquiesced, are complicit, and derelict.

There is a methodology for determining whether a combatant is not covered under the Geneva Conventions, but it must be a tribunal which follows minimal recognised due process procedures which decides. The president by himself cannot be this tribunal. It is an outrageous overreach for this claim to have been advanced. When tribunals have been held, they occurred well after the stripping of Geneva Protocol Protections. This exposes the Bush Administration as utterly faithless in the power and righteousness of the US Judicial Process. This has even extended into Congress, and together they have conspired to eliminate habeas corpus. Have Americans truly become so ignorant that they do not understand what is at stake?

Our country engaged in revolution originally, because a different George was engaging in the same tyrannies:

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended legislation:
• For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
• For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
• He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.
• A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.

For the future of America, this must cease. The Dreamtime is under attack.

To those who disagree; Originalise This:

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." -James Madison

"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,—entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigour, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad;…freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected,—these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation." --Thomas Jefferson

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." --Thomas Paine

We're Americans, we're supposed to be the high ground walkers, the shining beacon on the hill illuminating the power of individual liberty. This means we'll play by the rules, even if it means we have to fight with one hand tied behind our back. We will do it the right way, and we will prevail; because we are Americans.

The cravenness of Bush's actions and Rovian strategy has moved into a new, much more dangerous phase. It is apparent now that any and all means to lock in the Administration's grip on domestic and foreign warmaking policies are being considered and planned. That there would be a plan B, C, etc., isn't surprising. But the plans themselves are being updated and altered dynamically as the domestic political campaign proceeds. These may include creating a situation that will lead to war with Syria and or Iran, facilitating major attacks on US properties, troops and citizens in the US and abroad, an attempted or even successful assassination of a key Western figure, etc. I'm not trying to stoke fear of any one or other possible move; instead, I'm strongly suggesting that desperation is approaching critical mass, where events may begin to drive themselves in ways even the Administration and certainly the nation isn't prepared for.

The shameless, anything goes manipulation of the public perception and mood that has characterized Bush&Cie. from the beginning is precipitating a national emergency that may not be avoidable unless contrary action is taken by concerned citizens and groups. It behooves any sane person to consider what may need to be done to avert a disaster, and begin doing it in earnest.

Do criminals count as terrorists? Let me continue to digress from your openning paragraph. Terrorist attacks are up over four fold. But what's happening here? I seem to remember the major theme was that we fight them over there to keep the fight over there. But yesterday, I hear from A.G the A.G. [from MSNBC]: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that cities will need to work harder to combat a spike in crime but shouldn’t count on more federal funding, citing growing demands in the war on terrorism.
So even on Bush's terms we are losing this war. The terrorists are not here killing us, but their efforts are producing that result.
dc

 So, Rummy was right.  It was more like 6 years than 6 months or 6 weeks or 6 days.  We just hadn't learned yet how to interpret Rummyspeak.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I am not sure 'sponsored' is the proper description, It is hardly the CIA which authorised the arming of their Predators with Hellfire missiles, and it is also very unlikey that the CIA was the real authoriser of Predator missions which were violating Yemeni airspace. That is an exceedingly agressive act, which we would consider to be an act of war if the tables were turned.

The CIA has been involved with some dark and evil business in its history, but to accuse them of being the original motivation is false, especially post-Church investigation. The orders for any Yemeni mission in all probability came from the Executive branch, or possibly high-end Pentagon, but even the latter seems unlikely, given the potential volatility from the discovery of operating an surveillence asset, which is armed with significant lethal force within the borders of a country we are not officially engaged in hostilities with. State would freak out, so it wasn''t them. I'd guess that the sponsorship, and marching orders were stamped with the Prez's or VPs seal.

As to the mission's propriety, I haven't the available data to make that judgement, but if the decision had been mine to make, there would have needed to be high quality intelligence from familiar sources possessing an upper-end reliability rating, and the potential target of blue chip value, who was also an eminent threat to important US interests. I doubt that the Bush Administration's standards are this high.

Al Qaida is America's enemy, especially the leaders, and the members with international travelling experience. They are the ones who can visualise the means, and have the capability to engage the far enemy. America, as a country, has little to fear from the madrass educated Pak-Talibani in N. Waziristan, or the extremist who grew up fatherless in a Jordanian ghetto, no matter how it is portrayed by neoconnivers, although they are potentially deadly to soldiers operating in a foreign theatre, or American nonmilitary citizens in the same geopolitical swamps.

Don't demonise the techs flying the predators, they were tasked with orders, which had also been Congressionally approved, sort of... they are still human beings, who may very well have experienced an inner cacophony of remorse and self-doubt from bringing death. Even from a control room on the opposite end of the world, there would be a great deal of perceived personal proximity in the act, because the good controllers are the ones who can can imagine a projection of themselves onto the platform they are operating, and the cameras would provide detailed feedback.

I would be much more comfortable if CIA survellience drones remained unarmed though, and the Pentagon was tasked with missions such as this. The roles of civillian intelligence operatives and the military should not get blurred, because it will lead to big problems in the future if it is, although soldier operators might itself prove more problematical in missions which violated territorial airspace of a sovereign nation.

I wasn't intending to charge the CIA with a moral deficiency -- only intending to identify the particular "targeted assassination."

My point was that if, based upon CIA (or other government agencies) intelligence, it's okay to assassinate suspected/alleged terrorists, what's the problem with doing it after they're captured -- same intelligence, same result, right?

Or to put it differently, if they don't deserve due process before they're captured, why do they deserve due process after capture? 

Do criminals count as terrorists?

Terrorist acts are criminal, thus terrorists are criminals, aren't they?