A Problem of Definitions.

I just listened to the latter half of an interview with Bill Maher by Joe Scarborough. Scarborough asks if he thinks Bush should be impeaced. Maher says, Well duh. Scarborough says, Hey, it's not like he got rid of habeas corpus with the stroke of a pen. Maher says, Well, actually, yeah, he did. Scarborough then says, You crazy, man, crazy! After all, we didn't offer habeas protections to the Nazis or the Japs.

This seems to be a common category error. Am I alone in feeling entirely unconfused about the definition of Prisoner of War? It's not that our nation has denied its detainees habeas; it's not that our nation has denied its detainees POW status; it's that we've denied them both, constructing out of papier-mâché, bubble gum, and the contents of Puff the Magic Dragon's unwanted-gifts box a shiny new non-category called "illegal enemy combatant," against whom we assert an indefinable illegality which denies the basic rights of Prisoners of War while simultaneously, incoherently, inhumanly, and uncivilly denying them the rights of every other prisoner accused of extralegal or illegal activity: the right to challenge their detention.

That, Inquisitor, is the problem.

Unfortunately, the easy conclusion that Joe Scarborough is just one more jackass in our nation of jackasses proves wrong. Bill defends his proposition that habeas has been stricken, and Joe comes back: How are the Donkles gonna impeach a guy for doing something that a bunch of em voted for?

How, motherfuckers, how indeed?