dr. elsewhere here
No doubt this irony is like so many others we're becoming immune to in these Bush end times (is this what it means for irony to be dead?), but someone needs to say it out loud.
Tuesday, after a Nevada judge granted Dennis Kucinich the right to be included
in the Nevada Democratic debates on MSNBC, the Nevada Supreme Court
sided with the NBC argument that their First Amendment rights (presumably freedom of the press?) would be violated should they be forced to include Kucinich in the debates.
Now, before your head pops a joint trying to get itself around that pseudo-logic, include the reasoning employed by the DC Court of Appeals last week in upholding a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit
brought by four British Gitmo detainees against Rumsfeld et al.:
In a 43-page opinion, Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.
It gets worse in a way I can't leave out, though it does disrupt the smooth poetics of my pet irony here:
Finally, the Court found that, even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantánamo had any constitutional rights.
So, let's just get this straight. In denying Kucinich's lawsuit, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld First Amendment rights of a corporation
, while the DC Court of Appeals denied those creatures in bright orange suits at Gitmo any rights to even pursue a lawsuit because ....they are not even 'persons'
under US law. And, to top it all off, regardless of whether torture is illegal, our leadership is immune from civil action because, well, they're ignorant. And, evidently, rightfully so.
Toto, I don't think we're in a democracy anymore. Both those courts are under the spell of the Wicked Witch of the West.