I looked again at the Soviet criminal code and came across a provision that, if enacted, could help rein in some of the abuses in Washington.

This is from Article #151 - “Sexual relations with persons not having attained sexual maturity, linked with corruption or satisfaction of sexual urges in perverted forms–
PUNISHMENT:
deprivation of liberty for a term up to eight years.”

If that “linked with corruption” phrase was interpreted correctly, it would be possible to jail most of the people on Capitol Hill when they congressed among themselves.

“Do you think with some minor changes in the names used we could get Sean Hannity and the hanniots to start agitating for it?”

Thank you, it is a very fine website. My compliments to Mr. Cunningham.

This really is a very flexible law. As you note, Art. 58-10 has a lot of uses and I’ll add Art 58-8 as well. Check this out.
“58-8. The perpetration of terrorist acts, directed against representatives of Soviet authority or activists of revolutionary worker’s and peasants’ organizations, and participation in the performance of such acts, even by persons not belonging to a counterrevolutionary organization, shall be punishable by–

measures of social defense, indicated in article 58-2 of this code. [6 June 1927 (SU No 49, art. 330)].”
[Emphasis added]
Note that “terrorism” isn’t strictly define so as to allow the greatest amount of latitude for our federal defenders. Afterall, if you are with Bush you have nothing to fear.

I think that pretty well nails it. When it comes to tools to fight “terrorism” this legislation is the “Ace Hardware” version.

Do you think with some minor changes in the names we used could get Sean Hannity and the hanniots to start agitating for it?

Article 58-10 - “anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation” - might be especially germane to these times.

I suppose Bush could easily persuade Congress to expand the definition of “enemy combatant” to include anyone who suggests that Bush often looks whacked out of his mind during press conferences.

After following this dismal debate for some time I have a simple solution borrowed from History that will save all parties a lot of time in negotiations and give our beloved and brave president “all the tools he needs to fight global terrorism”. Give him Article 58. I realize that this old piece of Soviet legislation was passed after Trotsky was exiled which might upset the neocons, but I think the flexibility it provides should end the debate once and for all.
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/uk-rsfsr.html

While we might like retroactive decriminalization of anti-drug laws and not like it for torture, the wording is pretty clear. Might have to amend the Constitution, assuming, again, that anyone pays any attention to it.

What Bush seems to want is retroactive de-criminalization.

If he was proposing it for the millions of people busted for marijuana possession over the last few years, I would think it was a fine idea.

But every study I have seen indicates that torture is more harmful than marijuana.

So I don’t want to see torture retroactively decriminalized.

Sir, from reading your articles in the past I am not surprised that you join the side of The Democrats, John McCain and his trio and our enemies in agreeing that we should sacrifice the lives of American women and children in order to be kind to the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammad.

You refer to the ‘Gevena Convention’. Have you read it???? Maybe you overlooked the part that both parties must sign it and that it only applied to soldiers wearing an identifiable uniform.If you could show that these detainees had sifned the Convention and that they were in uniform of their country, some creditability could be assigned to your article.

Do you understand that we were attacked and lost 3000 plus of our innocent people???? Now, you, the Democrats and the John McCain trio weep for the killers and want them to have the same rights that our citizens have. I would expect women and ‘girlie-boys to be soft on killers but I am appalled at the number of so-called men to cave in to support them.

I am 93 years and 11 Months old. I could have opted out of World War Two but didn’t. When someone talks about, “walking the valley of the Shadow of death”, I understand what that means. Have you ever followed a retreating enemy and found the bodies of women and little girls with their belly’s split open and left to die a horrible death?? I DIDN’T THINK SO SINCE YOU DON’T SEEM CONCERNED ABOUT OUR INNOCENT PEOPLE THAT WERE KILLED by people that read from the same book as your new found friends.

What would you suggest instead of sending our military, Would you send flowers and social workers??

When we finish giving our country to the invaders from the South and bend our laws to accommodate the Muslims from the East, they will fight for which one controls the country. Which side will you support??

Maybe if you, The Democrats and The McCain Trio work harder you could move the front line in the war to St. Louis, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, New York and Washington, D.C. We would lose some innocent citizens, but not to worry, Mexico will replace any we lose by a ratio of ten to one.

Maybe if you treat them nice they won’t cut your head off. Of course, if you are one of them maybe they will spare you.

Will’s info on Lou Sheldon’s Traditional Values Coalition for Bush-style “interrogation” is appalling.