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.
How about we just let the people who are serving and have served decide war policy then? Everyone else just be quiet, and the veterans votes stick? Is that what you want?
61. – Good question.
Its been suggested by others – Robert A Heinlien for one – that society would be better off if those who vote perform an act of “faith” that would minimally qualify them for participation in the Republic. It would not have to be the Military – it could be valuable social service of any sort that requires service and sacrifice.
Let me suggest that only those who are going to die in a proposed war be the ones who can approve it.
What I don’t like about the neo-cowards is that they only believe in the war because they’re not the ones dying in it, but of course they make lots of money or get lots of power from it. I’m talking about the Ann Coultiers, the Bushs, the Cheneys, guys like Wolfiwitz and Bremmer and Santorum. putzes like DeLay and Ney. NONE of them have a dog in the fight yet they all yack “about cutting and running” blah blah blah. What happened to putting your money where your mouth is? Its easy to acuse others of running when you yourself have already secured your place in the rear.
60. Oh, you’re only asking. I thought you were telling. The answer then is no: they stick together because that is what wins elections. And I suspect more than a few of those voters have given up their own lives as well as their children’s. You should get out more if you need to meet more conservatives.
So only those who serve in war zones serve in the miltary in your world? So there is no military until there’s a war? The military options are open to all who can do the job as far as I know. I believe 40% of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan are Air or Army National Guard or other reserves.
RBG
62. I take it you’re writing this from the front. I think I know why you’d like the Ann Coulters, etc. over there.
RBG
#59 Is this supposed to make any kind of sense? Besides, Bush flew jets.
RBG
Comment by RBG — 10/2/2006 @ 11:51 am
Saying that Bush flew jets is like saying Paris Hilton was in the hotel industry.
He served, kinda… But he really lacks any real military credibility. Gore and Kerry – the hippy dippy liberal bleeding hearts he beat – have real military credentials. Dole had them. McCain has them. That crazy guy in the park who yells at clouds probably has them.
Bush doesn’t.
Niether did Clinton, and he was the best president this country had since Eisenhower, so I’m not saying Bush needs to have a military background. But if he and his supporters want to claim military experience, it would help if he really had some.
And so the Navy and all the other military personnel not in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing what?
RBG
#66
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).
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.
RBG
I’m sure you have all read this bill, and understand that it does NOT in any way apply to US Citizens. Right?