WP: A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed

Friday, June 30, 2006; A01

For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let them.

Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.

For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.

At a political level, the decision carries immediate ramifications. It provides fodder to critics who turned Guantanamo Bay into a metaphor for an administration run amok. Now lawmakers may have to figure out how much due process is enough for suspected terrorists, hardly the sort of issue many would be eager to engage in during the months before an election.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062902300.html

i guess you still have some conscience.

not the other way around. One more vote and the rest of the court will look like Bader-Ginsberg - a battered woman.

IMPEACH BUSH AND SEND THEM ALL TO THE HAGUE

The GOP majority has refused to reign in W in his empire building and taking of foreign prisoners. The USSC told them that this is a separation of powers issue. Now we'll see if the GOP will be anything other than a rubber stamp.

The tone of this whole piece stinks in that they try to portray bush as the poor put-upon president going too far in his zeal to "protect the country." And it begins in the very first sentence:

"For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit."

Here, the implication is that all these criminal acts began after 9/11, thus imparting the image of "mistakes made on behalf of a noble cause."

This tone continues throughout the piece. No mention is made, of course, that all of these illegal activities (especially the warrantless domestic spying) began well before 9/11, and was almost certainly used against political opponents, as it continues to be today.

"This ethos (better to act than to ask permission) is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader..."

That little snippet shows the bias in the article. The real core of bush's support, where he gets his money, is from those who, like him, despise america and everything it stands for. He and his ilk want nothing more than to loot the treasury, max out China's credit card, and leave the country an empty shell. (His religious base votes for him because he proclaims he's "pro life" and panders to their wish list of creeping theocracy. But they don't funnel him any material amount of money.)

Anyway, I'm not surprised to see the Washington Post continue to carry bush's water in this silly fluff piece, designed to provide lots of right-wing talking points to enable more lawlessness.

Never seen more dirt in my life. All the time W was courting the rabid right wing he was plotting lies against McCain. Then the two "hugged". Republicans have NO principles and they both sickened me.

The WP is lightly framing the issues at hand, that at some future date, the SC's decision may be the lightening rod that casts Bush in a whole different light. War Criminal.

StrikeOne, Bush is on record publicly admitting he has made mistakes in the run up to the war (short of saying he lied). The article points to (co-conspirator) Cheney's lust for infinite amounts of executive power. The spur behind the boot encouraging Bush to talk tough on Terrorism all in the name of National Security. Cheney's involvement is by design, a brain behind a brain. He made the snowballs and Bush threw them.

Now comes the Supreme Court's decision (strike two) striking the biggest blow to the Bush presidency since he "took" office. Disuniting their former cozy alliance with the Executive Branch because they see the writing on the wall. There are bigger issues forthcoming on the horizon. Who do you think will be left to ultimately take responsibility for over 2,500 of our citizens killed in a trumped up war? Who will be held accountable for the deaths of the 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. The World is focused and waiting.

TOTAL Bullshit orchestrated by Karl Rove!



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

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-as...

whose still wearing knee pads.

More evidence:

repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission.

Who acts? Men act. Who asks permission? Children and underlings. Quite a positive portrayal of autocratic practices, there, Washington Post. Couldn't the same have been said about Nixon and the illegal bombing of Cambodia? They omit the basic point: the executive was breaking the Law. Our constitutional system requires the executive to "ask permission" for particular actions, precisely to check the power of the executive. "Asking permission" - portrayed as such a childish gesture when contrasted with the "manly" tendency to ACT - is in fact the entire basis of our system of givernment. You can't have the CONSENT of the governed - which is to say, their PERMISSION - without ASKING for the consent of the governed. In our system, you get the consent of the governed through their representatives, the fucking CONGRESS. Dipshits.

That sort of back-and-forth process is just what Bush has usually tried to avoid

It may be what Bush tried to avoid, but it is what our Founders explicitly built in. Another way of saying "back and forth process" is...er, um...I dunno: DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION???? Assholes.


Bush came to office intent on expanding executive power even before Sept. 11, 2001, encouraged in particular by Vice President Cheney, who has long been convinced that presidential authority was improperly diminished after Watergate........when a president's natural instinct is to do whatever he thinks necessary to guard the nation against attack.

Contradicting ourselves again, WP? Is it a specific policy based on a historical position, or is it a "natural instinct"? Let's make up our minds, shall we. Of course, this ridiculous contradiction accomplishes just what it sets out to do in the WP narrative of the Bush years: Cheney as shrewd political expert, and Dubya as instinctual, natural, a real Natty Bumpo type. Please, Post writers, give us a fucking break already...:eyes:

"But once you get past that point . . . both as a matter of law and a matter of culture, a more systemic approach to the use of authority is appropriate."

God help us all...

way to me. "For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit" reeks of arrogance & imperialism. Dictators rule as they see fit; presidents do not. His entire governing philosophy has been rebuffed by the SC; & the article frames it as a needed restraint on Bush's expansion of executive power. But I don't agree that this is a losing issue for Democrats - the Supreme Court is validating everything Dems have been saying for awhile about Bush's unconstitutional tactics.