I finally decided that just for the fun of it, I would post my own prediction of the results of the Election of 2006.  I do so with no claims to expertise.  And though the fun of predicting is somewhat lessened since the results are already starting to come in, the following is what my prediction is:

I think the Democratic Party will take the Senate by one seat.  If not, I think they'll miss that by one seat.

I think the Democratic Party will take the House of Representatives by thirteen seats.  If not, I think they will still take control with no less than a 7 seat majority.

And like many have already predicted, the biggest statement that the Election of 2005 is making is that Americans are finally taking a stand regarding the onoing and increasingly poor performance of the current President and executive administration,  The disconnect between leader and people has been growing for some time.  Our President has failed to explain his actions in Iraq.  Personal motivations seem to have taken the place of national interest. 

To a lesser extent, I think the Election of 2006 is a mandate that "enough is enough" in a number of other areas.  Perhaps that mandate includes a recognition by the American people that they have allowed too much civil liberty to be stolen from them.  Some legislators have started to realize, though a bit too late, that they've made poor choices in the past.

Thank you America, for taking the time to finally have the courage to challenge status quo when our needs are no longer being met.

Many U.S. legal rights absent in detainee bill

Rules are far different than in American criminal justice system

Jeffrey Smith with the Washington Post has written further in the last hour or so.  He states that "the bill immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year. It gives the president a dominant but not exclusive role in setting the rules for future interrogations of terrorism suspects."

The President may be arguing the need for extraordinary powers, but even in "extraordinary times" it remains crucial that we maintain a system of checks and balances.  The point is not that we do not have a battle to fight, it is who is going to suffer along the way?  If crime has been committed....if it known, then we should have the ability to prosecute the crime within the rule of law, not outside of it.  The point, again, is not that we do not have a battle to right, it is that we need to main our civil liberty.  We need to be safe against those who intend to do our nation harm while staying safe from abuse of civil liberty. 

Before we can help bring civil liberty to citizens of nations around the world, we need to safeguard our own civil liberty.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26948prs20060928.html

Some Thoughts on "The Smart Politics of the Detainee Vote" (article by MSNC National Affairs write, 09/28/06 19:56PST - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15049251/)  as well as "Senate passes bill on terror detainee trials" from the Associated Press around the same time - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15044215/)

Both the House and the Senate have passed legislation (on Wed. and today, respectively) supporting our current President's continued infringement on the civil liberty of Americans.  And it wasn't just loyal, if too lazy to think, Republican legislators who voted yes.  Among them was Sherrod Brown of Ohio who is reported as stating that detainees "are not soldiers, not combatants representing a government, these are terrorists." 

Oh that's convenient.  That's sounds a dangerously close to saying "I'll decide who is a person and who is something else." (This actually reminds me of a somewhat recent measure passed by the voters in Utah usurping the right of criminals to vote, but that's a different issue for now).  The beauty of the rule of law is it ensures, among other things, a consistency of thought and process that safeguards against the danger of political expediency.  When one starts recreating basic definitions (such as those about people) "on the fly" to meet a particular agenda or situation, it becomes contradictory to assert one's self as a defender of the rule of law.  And when a group of people get to start defining who gets to keep their civil liberties and who doesn't.......well, watch out!!  And you'd better hope you make it into the "right" group.

Many would probably hear or read Brown's statement and not bat an eyelash because no one wants to sound like they support terrorists.  And that's exactly the rhetoric that we reportedly hear from the Republican camp.  Not everyone is fooled, though.  Some of us know that we can disagree with political actions in the last few years without supporting terrorism. 

Americans, let's at least be honest in our political discussions.  The point isn't what liberal minds think about terrorism.  The point is what we think about civil liberty.  At least a few Democrats, including the honorable Senator Feinstein from California, have pointed out that the issue with the President's bill regarding detainees relates to the rule of law.  And a little thing called the Bill of Rights, perhaps you've heard of it?  We all want to see terrorism end.  But we don't want to see grave mistakes made along the way. 

Brown's comment is also rather odd in regards to detainees not being soldiers.  I'm sorry.  I could have sworn I've heard things about a war in Iraq and a War on Terror.  Aren't the people fighting in a war typically called soldiers?  Perhaps a grade school level vocabulary is a luxury these days for legislators. 

And that is all really just an ironic side note, given that the definition of whether a terrorist is a soldier has nothing to do with how the severe mistake being made with this recent legislation.  Oh, its really easy to talk about all of this when detainees really are terrorists.  But what are you going to think when your next door neighbour is the next one rounded up?  Should they really be detaineed without the basics liberties granted in the Bill of Rights?

The powers given to the President to exercise judgement are far too great (we should not be comfortable even when the leader in question has a reputation for good judgement) and the powers to those accused far too little.  The legislation also redefines what can be considered evidence - "hearsay" being one of them. 

Finally, one should be questioning the timing of the legislation.  So this is the way that past violations of law will be condoned?  By conveniently altering the law?  Perhaps we should do away with the rule of law entirely, after all, it takes so much time to be consistent.

This is yet another say day for all of us.