Ben Whoffleck!?

What? Huh? Who? How come we haven't heard about the provisions in the new terror bill before?? For those that don't know, Bush signed into law today, a bill suspending the right of habeas corpus for all "terror suspects" and giving the President the power to flexibly interpret legislation to determine what level of torture is authorized at any given time.

The last time I read the Constitution (two minutes ago) it read "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Are we really in a rebellion or invasion? Is our public safety that badly in jeopardy that we have to yank habeas to facilitate torture? What the hell was Congress thinking??? If it was illegal for Lincoln to suspend Habeas Corpus during the civil war, I'm pretty sure it's illegal for Bush to do it now, but since those "suspects" aren't entitled to lawyers, nobody will ever have standing to challenge their incarcerations.*

In addition, I thought our government was based on separation of powers. Apparently, the executive branch now has the authority to unilaterally "legislate" changes in the anti-terror bill when it sees fit, and to judicially interpret the law. I don't know about everyone else, but it makes me incredibly uneasy, giving the President such broad authority to change and interpret the law. The way I read it, the executive branch is now virtually unaccountable for torture and interrogations. Wow.

*Note: I'm siding with the Souter-Ginsberg-Stevens-Kennedy-Breyer position that some Constitutional protections extend to U.S. actions beyond the borders of the U.S.