LAT: Supreme Court Ruling on Military Tribunals May Not Slow White House

[DeepModem Mom]

Supreme Court Ruling May Not Slow White House
By Doyle McManus, Peter Wallsten and Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
June 29, 2006

Washington -- Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush has asserted almost unlimited authority to define the rules of what he calls "a different kind of war." And, faced with the Supreme Court's rejection of administration policies on "enemy combatants" Thursday, the White House signaled that it had no intention of backing down.

Meeting the Supreme Court's objections required little more than having Congress put its stamp of approval on a system of military tribunals, the White House suggested. And some congressional Republicans quickly agreed....

***

The White House response was essentially to move the issue into the political arena by announcing it would seek congressional approval for its approach to prosecuting foreign terrorists....

***

Moreover, GOP strategists are likely to see huge advantages in moving such an issue into the realm of political debate prior to November's congressional elections. In that sense, Thursday's decision could be a political plus for Republicans.

White House political strategist Karl Rove has said repeatedly that the GOP's fall campaign will hammer the message that Democrats operate with a "pre-9/11" worldview -- and Republicans will attempt to paint Democrats critical of military tribunals as limp on terrorists....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess30jun30,0,330367.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[ninkasi]

1. I view the issue in a different way

<snip>
"Republicans will attempt to paint Democrats critical of military tribunals as limp on terrorists...."

To me, it's more a question of being strong in support of the Constitution, instead of being weak on terrorists. Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution, did he not? Then let him uphold it, rather than use it as toilet paper.

[Erika]

2. Let's get real

We have the best equipped military force in the world and the guerilla war tactics have kept us in check.

We don't belong in Iraq and never have. Terrorists will exist forever.

Why is W selling the public to think otherwise?

[HuffleClaw]

3. some pretty horrible spin in this story

it totally ignores that bush is basically claiming the court has no authority over him.

[DELUSIONAL]

6. him thinks he da King -- appointed for life

if so the whole world is in trouble.

He'll get his congress to ram through some sort of legislation that says -- whatever da king George wants -- that's o.k. 'cause it is legal -- 'cause we GOP congress fellas say so. Also 'cause da king George is black mailing us -- oops did we say that -- way wez god fearing christians -- really we are -- really -- believe us -- 'cause we said it -- that's why.

And so we have it folks -- the crazies are in control.

[Kagemusha]

4. If Congress wants to rip up the Geneva Conventions, so be it.

And America will live in infamy forever for it.

[nealmhughes]

5. Openly violating the Geneva Conventions is the best grounds for impeaching

Bush, Cheney, and the whole lot of them. Unfortunately, the House impeaches and the Senate tries. Then Roberts gets to preside....
And probably they would decide that the Geneva Conventions only relate to "real" soldiers, national security, etc. and it would never happen.
Ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land according to the constitution, along with SC decisions and the constitution itself. But when has the constitution ever bothered Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, and 5 men in black dresses?

[tritsofme]

7. The CJ presiding is mostly ceremonial.

The trial ends with a vote by the senators.

[killbotfactory]

8. Bush is above the law

Why would he give a flying fuck about what the law says if it doesn't hurt him politically?

[Sgent]

9. Congress & Bush

together deciding on a policy is the correct method in the first place. If Bush had been doing this from the start, there wouldn't be near the anger at Bush for ignoring the law.

There is no question that congress has the power to define courts, the judicial system, etc. Bush & Congress together can also withdrawl the US from the Geneva convention, etc.

The problem is that Bush was completely ignoring Congress & the Law. At least he will respect that much (and has been slapped by the supreme court).

[NVMojo]

10. now there's a true headline!

[tomg]

11. I assume that by a "pre-911 worldview"

that cretin Rove means peace, prosperity, a respect for civil liberties and human liberties in general, and some attempts at international co-operation.

[bemildred]

12. Bush has already usurped unilateral sovereignty.

Although the USSC is the source of his legitimacy, such as it is, he has long since abrogated any theoretical check to his powers. He will have to be removed by force or the threat of force. One may confidently predict an attempt to dictate a successor should that fail.