It takes a true act of cowardice to sign into law the permission to treat other human beings in such derogatory fashion. What separates us from terrorists (of all shape, colour, and political persuasion) is that we value life, all life, whereas they do not. More than that, we value the ideals that protect life and dignity. Today it's clear that Americans value their lives over their just ideals that they are purporting to spread throughout the world.

The remarks of members of the current American administration, and other political figures in support of dehumanizing treatment in order to "protect" American lives will forever be remembered as the moment America clearly said "we value our lives over yours, and our dignity over yours".

Any American, any free person, any human being not willing to lay down their life to defend the ideal of good treatment for all others, including criminals, is a true coward, and history will remember this administration and the people of this time as true cowards that acted out of fear.

America, the democratic nation led by cowards. If you're American, great... if you're not, they don't care a whit about you. Welcome to "freedom", "justice", done the American way.

For those of you wondering exactly what all the fuss was about, here are what The Associated Press glibly called "the highlights".

Personally I think it will be along time before we see anything so riddled with "lowlights", but with Bush at the helm, anything is possible!

To pick a couple of "highlights" from the "highlights" was not easy, but here goes:

A defendant would be selected for prosecution and assigned a military defense counsel. The defendant could retain civilian counsel if the counsel is eligible to have access classified information.

Now, I may be wrong, but is it not ludicrously unlikely that a defendant would find counsel likely to have top level access to classified information outside of the military or government? Surely this clause simply GUARANTEES that a military defence counsel will be assigned?

To put it another way, is it likely that anybody outside of US governmental control willing to defend a prisoner from Guantanamo Bay would be given that kind of clearance?

Statements obtained using interrogation methods that violate a 2005 ban on "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" would be admissible as evidence if they were taken before the ban went into effect and a judge found the statements to be reliable and would serve the "interests of justice."

So we can accept that as a complete admission by the US government that they did indeed sanction "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" (you will find that under torture in most dictionaries).

Not only that but this clause allows for the use of evidence obtained by torture to be used by the prosecution if that evidence were found to be reliable and would serve to find the defendant guilty.

When can ANY evidence obtained by torture be considered reliable?

A defendant would be allowed to examine and respond to any evidence given to a jury. If classified information were needed for prosecution, an unclassified summary would be provided.

essentially, this means that the defendant has the right to see and comment upon any of the evidence that is given to the jury, but with one slight catch...

They can only see it if it is unclassified, if not then a "summary" would be provided.

Bear in mind that these people are potentially subject to the death penalty if found guilty. What possible evidence could be deemed too secret for you to read and respond to in a trial that almost guarantees the death penalty should you be found guilty? Surely if the evidence is compelling enough then the defendant is not going to live long enough to tell anybody what they saw anyway?!

When the government wanted to protect classified information and an unclassified substitute was not available, the government could decide to drop the charges. Under the laws of war, the president would not be required to release the combatant.

What?!??! If the government chooses not to prosecute you because they cannot or will not offer any evidence against you then you can be held until the "War of Terror" ends?! This is some sort of sick, retarded joke, right?!

We have already been told, about a thousand times, that the "War of Terror" could last decades. Therefore, this clause means that, for whatever reason, if the government decides not to produce any evidence against you they can keep you in prison for the best part of the rest of your life.

Did I bang my head on a silly stick?! How on Earth did Congress find the utter inhumanity to even consider passing this ridiculous law? I have honestly heard nothing like it since reading up on Hitler's legal moves in the run up to and during the Second World War.

Defendants would be barred from protesting their detention or treatment in civilian courts.

They can lock you up without charges or evidence, they can torture you to get evidence, they can refuse to present any evidence against you in a US military court where your counsel will almost certainly be a member of the US military, they can detain you for the rest of your life should they choose NOT to present ANY evidence against you and, just when you thought it could not get any worse, they have blocked all access to ANY civilian court for the purposes of having that detention and TREATMENT (see the above comment on torture for further terrifying details) reviewed.

I ask again, how did Congress think for one second about voting for this neanderthal rubbish?

The system would apply to "unlawful enemy combatants" selected by the government for prosecution. Such a combatant is a person "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents."

To fully appreciate this you really need to understand what they mean by the term "unlawful enemy combatants". Note that it is placed in quotes. This is because their definition of it is so broad and ridiculous that there is no way they were going to lay it out for anybody in black and white and, considering what the rest of this document openly admits, this is a REALLY nasty moment in America's history.

To give you some idea of the scope of that statement, let us look at one particular example of an "unlawful enemy combatant"...

Everybody in the entire world that refuses to lay down and die for Bush, Blair, Olmert and Co.

You think that I am wrong? Then let me explain just how simply this is done.

You invade a country like Iraq and blow it to kingdom come with the most vicious and random attack ever seen on another nation. Then you send in tens of thousands of ground troops supported by tanks, helicopter gunships, jets and the latest military hardware. They go to the nations capital, facing very little resistance from an army that is well aware that they cannot possibly fight you like for like as they lack the necessary hardware, training and numbers, and you pull down a statue of the nations leader.

Then Dubya turns up looking like Cher on an aircraft carrier, declares the war is over and BANS THE NATIONAL ARMY OF IRAQ!

Hey presto, an entire army of "unlawful enemy combatants".

Now, you round up whoever the hell you like, torture them for a couple of years, whilst claiming that you don't do torture, get them to make whatever statement you would like them to make and then try them in a US military court offering them US military counsel without necessarily offering them ANY of the evidence against them for reasons of "National Security" and then decide to either kill them or lock them up for the rest of time.

Now, and here comes the really fun part, you apply this law to anybody that has been hostile towards Americans, anybody who has purposefully and materially supplied anybody who has been hostile towards Americans OR THEIR ALLIES.

Whoa there silver...Did they just pass a law that says that ANYBODY who is "hostile" towards America or any of its allies or helps somebody who is "hostile" to America or any of its allies can be locked up indefinitely without charges, evidence or a trial and possibly even killed should the US military choose to do so?

I actually think that they did!

This whole "United States or its co-belligerents" is simply unbelievable...

Any nation in the entire world that supports the US in any way, shape or form, in its war(s) is also able to use this law. This actually means that Britain is now as responsible for the treatment of these detainees as the US are. So is the Iraqi government for that matter. And we can all share a little of the blood on the hands of the Americans...

NOT IN MY NAME.

The United States of America is no longer a nation, it is an empire. It is passing laws for other nations without so much as a by your leave. This is world government, world law, world control.

STOP PAYING TAXES. STOP PAYING FINES. STOP PAYING ANYTHING THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO YOUR GOVERNMENT SO THAT THEY CAN RUN FACILITIES LIKE GUANTANAMO BAY.

Without our money there is no government. Without our money there is no torture. Without our money there is no "War of Terror".

This must end and it must end NOW.

Read the rest of this tripe below as I cannot be bothered to offer any further comment other than to say that it actually gets WORSE including giving the right to Bush to "interpret the Geneva Conventions" however the hell he likes.

Whilst reading it ask yourself a simple question...

Is this the world that you want your children to grow up in?