Has anyone else noticed that the mainstream media--and I mean the genuinely middle-of-the-road media, not the crytpo-fascist media like Fox--is consistently reporting the recent decision in the Padilla case--and the less important 9th Circuit decision about the Guatanomo prisoners--under the rubric, "Administration Suffers Setbacks in War on Terror," instead of under rubrics like, "Administration Suffers Setbacks in Its Attack on the Rule of Law and Democratic Rights," or simply "Victory for the Rule of Law and Democracy." Any of these headlines would be appropriate; isn't it striking which one the media consistently choose?
(On a different note, couldn't we have an agreement, at least among grown-ups, to stop using the phrase "war on terrorism," unless we have an explicit understanding that it is not a real war, but rather is like the "war on drugs," i.e., a metaphorical war that will fail, and so one that doesn't excuse any hair-brained schemes cooked up by beady-eyed, morally stunted politicians. One can't wage war on a political technique. Full stop. One could wage war on a group, perhaps, or on a country (as the US has been doing), but you can't wage war on techniques that can be employed by anybody for any purpose. The US waged war on Afghanistan, and is waging war on Iraq, and is engaged in an international manhunt for members of a terrorist group, but there is no such thing as a "war on terrorism." It doesn't exist. Look in the mirror and repeat that.)