I was thinking the other day about how any action against the U.S. government is now considered "terrorism". I was watching Stephen Colbert who made some tongue-in-cheek comment about the number of terrorist attacks and amongst his list of recent attacks was the attack against the U.S.S. Cole. I realized that most people probably consider this attack a terrorist attack. This is incorrect.

The attack against the Cole may have been tragic, but it was not a terrorist attack. It was guerilla warfare. What's the difference? It was waged against a military target, not civilians.

If we are to believe the Bush administration and the media, then any and all actions against an established government are "terrorist" attacks. But of course, by that definition, the Revolutionary War was a (successful) series of terrorist attacks against the British.

The casualties in the war on words are piling up.

Welcome our new dictator.

I think the first people to be prosecuted under this bill should be its authors for attempting to destroy our way of government and life from within. How long has this infiltration been going on?

The Bush administration has systematically destroyed every law ever made to protect American citizens from their own government, and yet I'm still amazed at the temerity of this. Will the next step be not simply not doing things labeled as "terrorist acts", but actual requirements to prove your allegience?

To quote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "When courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot - and should not - be shielded from criticism". Ironically, Gonzales doesn't apply this same reasoning to the Executive branch of our government. Apparently the courts should be criticised for overturning long-standing traditions and policies but that anyone who criticises the Executive branch should be imprisoned and tortured until they confess, and then possibly put to death.

You might convince yourself that "well, the wording might allow them to do that, but they never would", but then you'd be a fucking idiot. Bush has already stated publicly that he does whatever the law allows. He further clarified that he meant this in terms of the fullest extent of the law. If the law allows him to kidnap and torture U.S. citizens, he will.

Double-plus ungood.