Having read the released Yoo memorandums that tried to expand Bush's power exponentially, and then read some diaries that reference conservative blogs all but calling for armed uprisings, I have to ask - could some of these people be jailed as "Unlawful Combatants"?
The Bush administration wanted powers of arrest and detention expanded as far as possible. I don't think anyone can dispute that. I do wonder, though, how quick the Republicans would be to start screaming about abuse if some of their own were arrested, detained indefinitely without charge, and people were simply told it was because they were "unlawful combatants".
A quick definition of an Unlawful Combatant, courtesy of Wikipedia:
An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
Now, we already know that people like Rush Limbaugh are calling for the Commander in Chief to fail. People at Free Republic and other conservative blogs are going even further, and calling for the removal of Obama by violent means if there is no lawful way to remove him peacefully. These people in particular are straying into the definition of Unlawful Combatant, given that they're quite open in saying that "when the armed uprising begins, count me in" - in other words, calling for an armed insurrection against a legally elected government.
This isn't new policy to Republicans. Agree with it or not, Hamas won a huge political victory in Palestine, winning 76 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament. The Bush fan Republicans, however, still calls Hamas a "terrorist organisation" and insists it be overthrown - by violence if not by peaceful means. There's really no difference between the attitude these people show towards Hamas and the attitude they're now showing towards Obama.
There's no doubt that the non-political wing of Hamas, in the same way as the non-political wing of the Irish Republican Army, is involved in violent acts; but peace remains in Northern Ireland due to political negotiation even though Sinn Fein is known to deal with the more violent - dare I say terrrorist? - factions of the IRA. Likewise, peace can rein in Palestine by political action, particularly pressure to Israel to accept the results of Hamas' election victory. It doesn't have to get violent.
And yet over here, more disturbingly than ever, the moment the Republicans are the minority they seem to thing it quite acceptable to openly talk about an armed uprising. Even worse, they have already convinced themselves that - far from being a bad thing - such an uprising is actually necessary for the good of the country. Terms like "Obamacide" "the Obamessiah" and "Obomination" are applied to the President and his administration and policies, some of these people actually seem to believe that by an armed uprising they would in fact be helping America.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that two wrongs don't make a right. The indefinite detention of anyone without charge is wrong no matter what political affiliation. But when these people start handing us evidence that could conceivably lead to their successful prosecution as Unlawful Combatants, it's getting more and more difficult to resist the temptation to call for their arrest and charge under such legislation. At least if that happened, we would be affording to them something they haven't afforded others; legal charge instead of illegal indefinite detention. It's something they should keep in mind.