… that’s what the Republican pro-torture [gag] “compromise” allows:

In recent days the Bush administration and its House allies successfully pressed for a less restrictive description [Hmm….] of how the government [i.e., the extremely legitimate Bush regime] could designate civilians as “unlawful enemy combatants,” the sources said yesterday. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the bill.

Uh oh. When Republicans start parsing, look out.

As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, “has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States” or its military allies.

Look, I’d say that voting Democratic “purposefully and materially supports hostilities against the United States.” Liberals are traitors [DCOW]! At least, that’s what Moderate Republican Joe Lieberman tells me, and I believe whatever Joe spews, uh, says. Rush, Malkin, and the rest of the VRWC too.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that by including those who “supported hostilities” — rather than those who “engage in acts” against the United States — the [cough] government intends the legislation to sanction its seizure and indefinite detention of people far from the battlefield.

“Far from the battlefield,” eh? Sounds like Bush has something in mind for the green, green grass of home.

Because while the narrative keeps saying these bills are directed at furriners, it’s “unlawful combatants” who can be detained. And hat is an unlawful combatant? Just ask the man who writes, interprets, and enforces the laws! Our President! (Or the man who would be our President, if we continued to live under a Constitution.) John Dean explains. I’m going to strike out all the obfuscatory terra verbiage like this to make it clear who’s really the target of this legislation:

[“Enemy combatant”] term is vaguely defined to mean anyone who the President or the Secretary of Defense claims is “part of or affiliated with a[n] force or organization—including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents; in violation of the law of war;” or has “committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged;” or has “ [that has] supported hostilities in aid of such a[n] force or organization so engaged.”

Aw, heck, “support” would never be construed to mean that anyone who opposed the war was a traitor and could be detained indefinitely! Let’s just ask Roberts, Scalito, and Scalia!

Oh, wait. We can’t even do that! No habeus corpus:

Under a separate provision, those held by the CIA or the U.S. military as an unlawful enemy combatant would be barred from challenging their detention or the conditions of their treatment in U.S. courts unless they were first tried, convicted and appealed their conviction.

So, if the microwave “crowd control” don’t work, Bush still has options. That’s a relief.

NOTE Guess what the name of the [gag] “compromise” is? The “Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006. Jeebus. Up is down…