Slate magazine, Today’s Papers:
The Bush administration, supported by House allies, has slipped a small but important change into last week’s “compromise” bill on terror suspects, the Post reports. The earlier bill, worked out in negotiations with restive Senate Republicans, defined enemy combatants as those who have “engaged in hostilities,” but the latest draft legislation expands the definition to include those who have “supported hostilities.” The new language could boost the administration’s contention that it can designate virtually anyone an enemy combatant; the Post notes it “does not rule out the possibility” that the designation could be applied to a U.S. citizen.
From the Post story:
Under a separate provision, those held by the CIA or the U.S. military as an unlawful enemy combatant would be barred from challenging their detention or the conditions of their treatment in U.S. courts unless they were first tried, convicted and appealed their conviction.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) yesterday assailed the provision as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, which he said was allowable only “in time of rebellion or in time of invasion. And neither is present here.”
Wade Rockett 
This is the most frustrating thing in a while for me. I want to do something about it and the best I can come up with is to poke at the media. Maybe it’s because I think about it too much, but I worry that the way the issue is being cast isn’t making the extent of the problem clear to people. People don’t know habeas corpus, and “challenge their detainment” is such neutral language. “Make the case that they’re innocent” would be better. But most of the big media – NYT, WaPo and AP -haven’t seized on the innocence question at all. They just let the assertions that these people were “picked up on the battlefield” go.
If you do a Google News search on “Guantanamo innocence,” you see that the overseas press is on the story, but ours is ignoring it.