1. The Bush Administration has been an abject failure not only in the realm of the battle against Al-Qaeda, but in its non-Imperial management of the banking/finance system of the economy.

2. Fein's article is obsessed with the alleged Constitutional abuses of the administration connected to its characterization of the very real battle against Al-Qaeda as a "War on Terrorism," the operative word being "war." The use of this word by presidents has been common since LBJ's declaration of the War on Poverty, followed by Nixon's (?) War on Drugs. The word is used by pols to convey seriousness of purpose rather than its literal meaning.

3. Fein seems to focus his concern on the throat-slashing, beheading-live-humans terrorists than and their lack of the right to assemble "dream team" defense ensembles and do battle in our flawless criminal justice system--a la OJ and others-- than on the victims, us, of their atrocities.

Bush & Co. are confronted with an enemy. Even Fein concedes this point. This enemy "loves to die as much as Americans love to live." They murder British and Spaniard commuters in trains on their way to work and dream of blowing up the Lexington Ave. Express one morning in NYC. These are our adversaries today. To squawk about them not having rights equivalent to those of US citizens makes one wonder what goes on in Fein's mind.

US citizens, be they accused murderers, rapists, torturers or whatever, have inalienable rights, period. These have been elucidated over centuries of jurisprudence and retreat on those rights is inexcusable, by this or any other administration.

But the use of brutal treatment, short of torture, the definition of which is ambiguous at best, against non-US persons committing and proudly publicizing acts of incomprehensible cruelty against other (arguably innocent) human beings ipso facto disqualifies those persons from protections enjoyed by citizens of our country. Should we saw their heads off, as they do others? No. Has even Bush been accused of ordering any actions remotely approaching the barbarity of these Islamic radicals? No.

Fein, it seems, would dress these enemies in Brooks Brothers suits, appoint Sullivan & Cromwell to defend them--at public expense, of course--and hope they find a sympathetic jury that acquits them.

If any presidential candidate were to adopt the whimpering, weak-kneed liberal suggestions of Fein as his or her platform, one would not need Gallup to predict that candidate's chances of winning.

{Note: Though I obvious disagree with the bulk of Fein's suggestions, I do agree that G.W. Bush is destined, alongside Jimmy Carter, to be historically evaluated as among the worst presidents in our history, and certainly as the most intellectually unqualified one.}

My Blog: proteanPerspectives.blogspot.c­om

FredrickBernanke:

But the use of brutal treatment, short of torture, the definition of which is ambiguous at best, against non-US persons committing and proudly publicizing acts of incomprehensible cruelty against other (arguably innocent) human beings ipso facto disqualifies those persons from protections enjoyed by citizens of our country.

This is the crux of the problem caused by Bush and co.

1) Just because the people we are going after are horrible, murderous villains does not give us the right to abandon our principles in fighting them! When we treat them differently than we would a US criminal at best we fail to 'sell' our fight and our principals to the global community (the hearts and minds battle of democracy and freedom), and at worst we are seen as hypocrites acting out of self interest rather than enlightened principals.

2) At the ideological level how can support democracy and freedom in the global community but then say that the principals of law and the protections and rights afforded to individuals in this country only apply to US citizens. The Constitution does not say this. Now I am not saying that everyone in the world at all times must be treated as citizens. Rather, wherever the US has jurisdiction, i.e. the US, much of Iraq, and any other place where our military or law enforcement can arrest and detain individuals, the US federal and Constitutional principals must be upheld regardless of whether citizens or non-citizens are being arrested and tried.

FredrickBernanke:

2. Fein's article is obsessed with the alleged Constitutional abuses of the administration connected to its characterization of the very real battle against Al-Qaeda as a "War on Terrorism," the operative word being "war." The use of this word by presidents has been common since LBJ's declaration of the War on Poverty, followed by Nixon's (?) War on Drugs. The word is used by pols to convey seriousness of purpose rather than its literal meaning.

3. Fein seems to focus his concern on the throat-slashing, beheading-live-humans terrorists than and their lack of the right to assemble "dream team" defense ensembles and do battle in our flawless criminal justice system--a la OJ and others-- than on the victims, us, of their atrocities.

Bush & Co. are confronted with an enemy. Even Fein concedes this point. This enemy "loves to die as much as Americans love to live." They murder British and Spaniard commuters in trains on their way to work and dream of blowing up the Lexington Ave. Express one morning in NYC. These are our adversaries today. To squawk about them not having rights equivalent to those of US citizens makes one wonder what goes on in Fein's mind.

So many half-true assumptions in this post, that it would be better to just rebut a couple of the most egregious ones.

Firstly, regarding definitions, you are correct that "The War on Terror" was originally a conceit borrowed from other non-literal wars such as "The War on Poverty." However, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that after coining the term, this administration promptly stepped up the rhetoric as if we really were at war. "This is a new kind of war, with new kinds of enemies," and then they proceeded to invoke executive privilege as presidents only ask for during war. You must admit that this administration has been allowed to have it both ways.

Secondly, you buy into the Bush administration's wrongheaded and Kafka-esque assumption that every suspect we lock away is a terrorist, because we locked them up. It doesn't matter how flimsy the government's case is against a given suspect, they have no day in court. That's why they should be tried as criminals, because this isn't about giving rights to terrorists, it's about deciding who's a terrorist and who's not through due process.

Throw in a couple of sensationalist generalizations about ragheaded suicide bombers who hate America, and any logic-deprived argument carries weight.

Airflorida:

This is the crux of the problem caused by Bush and co.

1) Just because the people we are going after are horrible, murderous villains does not give us the right to abandon our principles in fighting them! When we treat them differently than we would a US criminal at best we fail to 'sell' our fight and our principals to the global community (the hearts and minds battle of democracy and freedom), and at worst we are seen as hypocrites acting out of self interest rather than enlightened principals.

I'm sorry, but who gives a FLIP if we sell this war properly to the global community! We are fighting to protect the lives of American citizens. Not to mention that we have (for the first time if memory serves) given Geneva Convention rights to enemy combatants who do not wear the uniform of a foreign nation/state or in and of themselves follow the same conventional guidelines. But you are correct...we are acting out of self interest, but to protect our principals.