Bush's only Legal Argument for the Detainee Bill; The Supreme Court Doesn't Exist

On the 29th, congress sent Bush the bill, which Associated Press said, "...he was expected to do very soon." Most expected him to sign it over the weekend.

So where is it?

Sure,
the media spotlight has shifted to Foley, but why would that make any
difference? If the bill is needed to save american lives, as the
President tells us, why is he sitting on it?

Part of the problem
may be that there's almost no way the law will stand up in court.
Before the bill passed, Sen. Russ Feingold delivered his statement of opposition to it.

Under
this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive
branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held
indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the
courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great
nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put
outside the reach of the law.

Mr. President, that is
unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But that
determination will take years of protracted litigation.

It
looks like Feingold may have been overly pessimistic. Where Russ sees a
life expectancy measured in years, others see it much closer to death.

Read More...