Thursday

Thursday, June 29, 2006
BREAKING: 5-3 decision, Supreme Court smacks down Bush over Gitmo detainees by John in DC - 6/29/2006 10:29:00 AM

UPDATE: Washington Post:
The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions are unconstitutional.Just coming in now.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.Not so quaint after all, those Geneve Conventions.This is apparently the Ahmed Hamdan case, the "driver" of Osama bin Laden. The court said Bush overstepped his authority in setting up military war crime tribunals to deal with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The government has to come up with new procedures to either repatriate the detainees at Gitmo, let them go, or try them. The Geneva Convention must be applied, and the US has not properly established the military commissions to try the detaineesMore in a bit. But note one thing. The Supreme Court is now 7-2 Republican to Democrat. The court is even further to the right than it was when Bush took office since he replaced Sandra Day O'Connor with Alito, who is far to the right of her.That means that even with the most conservative Supreme Court in decades, Bush still got slapped down for his handling of civil liberties under the war on terror. Enough of this "activist judges" bs. Even the Republican-run court slaps down Bush (and apparently the legislative branch gets slapped too).And what a surprise:

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.Three of the four horsemen of the apocalypse would have given Bush a blank check, big surprise. And had Roberts been involved, he recused himself, it's not hard to imagine that he'd have supported Bush's power grab as well. One more vote folks, and there is no stopping this administration. The next Supreme Cour vacancy, if it's one of the reasonable judges, and there will be no more checks on this administration.
Comment

Bush is on the warpath -- against Democrats and the media by Joe in DC - 6/29/2006 09:36:00 AM

Campaign 2006 will be all war all the time. Bush has nothing to run on, so he's running on the biggest failure of all -- Iraq. He can't vanquish the insurgents in Iraq and he can't capture Osama, but he's playing the tough guy against the Democrats and the press. And, like the Bush strategy for Iraq, the campaign strategy is based on lies and falsehoods:

With opposition to the war threatening to hurt the GOP in this fall's congressional elections, Bush gave an impassioned plea for voters to re-elect Republicans who have supported his national security policies. He repeatedly pointed his finger in the air to emphasize his points and at several points his voice rose to a shout."Make no mistake about it, there's a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done," Bush said. "They're willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off and the world will be worse off."As Think Progress noted, White House aide Dan Bartlett couldn't really name anyone who wants to wave the white flag. But we all know that doesn't stop Bush from saying it. He lies. In the new campaign speech, Bush, whose staff outed an undercover CIA spy, had the audacity to say this:

"There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it, and no excuse for any newspaper to print it," Bush said.How can anyone take this line of attack seriously when the biggest offenders work for Bush?

Hey Media: That's what the communists did by Joe in DC - 6/29/2006 08:20:00 AM
Last night, I watched Paula Zahn interview Susan Milligan, a reporter with the Boston Globe who also chairs the committee on credentials for House and Senate correspondents about the NY Times smear.Paula was giddy because Congressman JD Hayworth wants to have the press credentials yanked from the Times.Milligan gave the answer that every reporter needs to hear:
But the important thing here is the principle, is that we don't let Congress tell the press what they can and cannot publish. You know, I -- I lived in Eastern Europe for five years during the 1990s and reported there. And I know what happens in countries where the government tries to suppress or intimidate or censor the press, because that's what the communists did to my friends. Yes, that's what communists did -- not what nations with freedom of the press do.Paula Zahn seemed completely oblivious to the fact that she was doing an interview about the government of the United States bullying and censoring the press. She seemed oblivious to the fact that she is also a member of the media. Unfortunately, Zahn is acting like most of the press.I also saw Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC actually say that this action by the Bush administration wasn't necessarily political. She really should know better.Note to reporters: If the Bush administration can threaten the NY Times with espionage, they can do the same thing to you. You all reported on the Times story. Does that make you all accomplices to treason? STOP treating this attack on the NY Times like it's some normal story where both sides deserve a fair hearing. It's not. Has the media in America been so emasculated by the Bush administration that they are not willing to defend the First Amendment?