Detainee bill lifts Bush’s power to new heights / President now has legal authority even courts can’t challenge — Welcome to Rome, folks. You may be witnessing history although nobody is actually telling you about it. And this is just the beginning as long as our Congress is nothing more than yes-massa stooges.

This has nothing to do with terrorism, otherwise they would find Bin Laden. It’s about power. And hey, where are all those “liberal” newspapers and activist judges when this sort of thing happens? Another myth.

With the final passage through Congress of the detainee treatment bill, President Bush achieved a signal victory Friday, shoring up with legislation his determined campaign against terrorism in the face of challenges from critics and the courts.

Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them — albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment — beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners.

Taken as a whole, the law will give the president more power over terrorism suspects than he had before the Supreme Court decision this summer in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that undercut more than four years of White House policy. It does, however, grant detainees brought before military commissions limited protections initially opposed by the White House. The bill, which cleared a final procedural hurdle in the House on Friday and is likely to be signed into law next week by Bush, does more than allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.

  1. RBG says:

    And so the Navy and all the other military personnel not in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing what?


  2. OhForTheLoveOf says:


    That depends… Are they serving actively… Or are their bunks empty while their bodies are in another state working as assistants to Senators?

    I don’t care that Bush took flying lessons on the taxpayers dime. I care that his proponents brag about his military experience when there wasn’t any worthwhile military experience to speak of.

    In fairness to Bush, I’m not certain I’ve ever heard Bush himself talk about his military experience except to say what we all know, that he served some uncertain period of time flying outmoded jets in Louisiana. It’s his ardent fans and assorted apologists who talk about it, so I don’t even think I should criticize Bush directly for it.

    The real point is that he has no background or experience to speak of that helps him in the role of Commander In Chief (really, not that many Presidents were Eisenhower, so its not that uncommon).

  3. RBG says:

    So the lesson here is that you’re not making a military contribution unless you’re able to put notches in your gun so it looks good.

    And the fact that you go through weapons handling, military law, military ethics, navigation, tactics, military history, drill, exercises, combat engineering, communications, leadership training, top secret briefings – just a very few required examples from basic training, officer training, pilot training, and military society meant to prepare you to be a useful person in wartime – it doesn’t mean diddly unless you register a kill. Only then will all your experience suddenly come into play to give you some insight into the military. Well, at least he learned how to return a salute.


  4. JPresEFnet says:

    I’m sure you have all read this bill, and understand that it does NOT in any way apply to US Citizens. Right?


Bad Behavior has blocked 5306 access attempts in the last 7 days.