Good Bush Editorial

StewartG · 07-23-2006

I read this and thought it was a pretty good "summary" editorial about George W. Bush. (I knew the writer was on the right track when he starts with apologies to the makers of the 1994 movie, "The Madness of King George.")

Anyway, here goes:

Finally, Bush is told 'no'

The ruling on detainees at Guantanamo showed that presidents also must play by the rules.

By Leonard Pitts Jr.

Leonard Pitts Jr.

is a Miami Herald columnist

With apologies to the makers of the 1994 film, it's never been "the madness of King George" that troubled me.

No, it was the arrogance, a hubris so awesome and awful that you tended to forget that George is not, in fact, a king but a president. One might have been forgiven for forgetting, since President George W. Bush has governed pretty much as a King George would have: by fiat and decree.

So the Supreme Court's recent rebuke of the Bush administration and the administration's chastened acceptance of same comes like spring air into a musty room.

Late last month, the high court, on a 5-3 vote, ruled that the president could not, on his sole authority, put detainees at Guantanamo Bay on trial before a military tribunal. The court found that the effort to do so violated both international law and federal statutes, a stinging rejection of the White House's attempt to expand executive authority.

Last week, as a direct result of that ruling, the White House conceded what it has refused to concede for years: that the prisoners at Guantanamo are protected by the Geneva Conventions.

It's not the specifics of the ruling that enthuse me. It is, rather, the fact that there's a ruling at all, the fact that somebody finally told Bush no. In so doing, the court reaffirms that which never should have been in question: Even presidents have to play by the rules.

It's an elemental truth, but one that has been under assault and in doubt ever since Team Bush came to office. The most glaring example, of course, is its conduct of the War on Terror, where the president has claimed for himself the virtually unfettered right to surveil and detain in violation of established law and custom. The electorate, cowed to silence by fear, watches complacently. Anyone who does dare raise a question or, God forbid, an objection, is shouted down by the president's catch-all excuse for excess: Sept. 11.

But it's not just the war that showcases the president's disdain for rules. It's, well... everything. It's his intrusion into the Terri Schiavo affair. It's the administration's habit of quashing scientific reports that conflict with political needs.

It's Bush's Education Department paying columnist Armstrong Williams to say good things about the No Child Left Behind law, stomping basic tenets of journalistic ethics and federal law. It's his administration's habit of providing "news" videos to broadcast outlets, which air them without revealing that the "reporter" works for the White House.

Indeed, for all the blather we've suffered these last years about the sins of so-called "activist judges," the plain fact is that what really endangers us is an activist president, a man who evidently believes he can do what he wants when he wants.

As much as his sycophants like to portray this bullheadedness as evidence of presidential resolve, what it actually illustrates is disdain, the imperial hubris and messianic mind-set of a fellow who believes himself on a mission from the Almighty and, therefore, not to be troubled by such small niceties as what is customary or legal. So the Supreme Court's ruling is about more than just the fate of the Gitmo detainees. It is a stop sign for a runaway administration, a reminder that this is still a country of laws, not men.

Somebody pass the word to King George: At the end of the day it turns out that he's just a president after all.

**sctx** · 07-23-2006

so the screams to put these guys on trial will cease and the detainees will be detained until our troops are out of the field......cool

StewartG · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by sctx

so the screams to put these guys on trial will cease and the detainees will be detained until our troops are out of the field......cool

No - the Supreme Court also ruled that they need to be tried. We are slowly but surely steering the giant S.S. United States back on course.

**sctx** · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by StewartG

No - the Supreme Court also ruled that they need to be tried. We are slowly but surely steering the giant S.S. United States back on course.

did they specify exactly how or when (honest ? here, just going on my brief CNN knowledge, I equate reading court decisions with reading hebicide labels

) Seems like the plan would be to hold them till the end of hostilities and then turn them over to the Hague

StewartG · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by sctx

did they specify exactly how or when (honest ? here, just going on my brief CNN knowledge, I equate reading court decisions with reading hebicide labels

) Seems like the plan would be to hold them till the end of hostilities and then turn them over to the Hague

Not sure either of the specifics, and the kids need attention so no time to look it up!

Jacko · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by sctx

did they specify exactly how or when (honest ? here, just going on my brief CNN knowledge, I equate reading court decisions with reading hebicide labels

) Seems like the plan would be to hold them till the end of hostilities and then turn them over to the Hague

I believe the compromise is leading towards trials at Guantanomo with a date certain, rather than military commissions with no date at all. There is now more acceptance by the President to follow the UCMJ and the Constitution.

horizon200 · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacko

I believe the compromise is leading towards trials at Guantanomo with a date certain, rather than military commissions with no date at all. There is now more acceptance by the President to follow the UCMJ and the Constitution.

I think the proper phraseology would be follow the ruling of the Supreme Court. Al Qaeda terrorists don't have U.S. Constitutional rights

Jacko · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by horizon200

I think the proper phraseology would be follow the ruling of the Supreme Court. Al Qaeda terrorists don't have U.S. Constitutional rights

But WE must follow the Constitution, our own laws, and or the UCMJ in our actions...don't you get that distinction?

**sctx** · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacko

I believe the compromise is leading towards trials at Guantanomo with a date certain, rather than military commissions with no date at all. There is now more acceptance by the President to follow the UCMJ and the Constitution.

I was under the impression we've been culling them out all along unless there was strong evidence that they would return to the battlefield. I thought my father might be able to clear things up a little but he doesn't quite understand why armed unidentified combatants were taken prisoner unless they were specific target extractions (which some were). Hell, they can send them to the 9th circuit court for all I care, but not while I've got a dog in the fight.

(and Stewie....... next Sunday, start your day right....try a cup of decaf and put on a little song called "A Pirate Looks at Forty"

)

Just Lucky · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by sctx

I was under the impression we've been culling them out all along unless there was strong evidence that they would return to the battlefield. I thought my father might be able to clear things up a little but he doesn't quite understand why armed unidentified combatants were taken prisoner unless they were specific target extractions (which some were). Hell, they can send them to the 9th circuit court for all I care, but not while I've got a dog in the fight.

(and Stewie....... next Sunday, start your day right....try a cup of decaf and put on a little song called "A Pirate Looks at Forty"

)

Many of them were unarmed and purchased by the US from warlords in Afghanistan on the claim that they were Al-Qaeda.

Jacko · 07-23-2006

Interesting report here by legal counsel for two of the detainees....what if there is any merit to this?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The media and public fascination with who is detained at Guantanamo and why has been fueled in large measure by the refusal of the Government, on the grounds of national security, to provide much information about the individuals and the charges against them. The information available to date has been anecdotal and erratic, drawn largely from interviews with the few detainees who have been released or from statements or court filings by their attorneys in the pending habeas corpus proceedings that the Government has not declared “classified.”

This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government’s own documents.

This Report provides a window into the Government’s success detaining only those that the President has called “the worst of the worst.”

Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

PlayadelSoul · 07-23-2006

Are Sundays now anti Bush circle jerk days

Stewart seems to be catching up.

**james** · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Are Sundays now anti Bush circle jerk days

Stewart seems to be catching up.

Those guys had some pretty good albums.

PlayadelSoul · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by james

Those guys had some pretty good albums.

Thats funny. After I typed it, I had the same thought, and started to download a couple.

Just Lucky · 07-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Are Sundays now anti Bush circle jerk days

Stewart seems to be catching up.

Every day is a good day to be pro-democracy and anti-facist.

07-23-2006	#1 (permalink)
StewartG commie pinko Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: The Kremlin (when not at my dacha in Houston) Posts: 12,907	Good Bush Editorial I read this and thought it was a pretty good "summary" editorial about George W. Bush. (I knew the writer was on the right track when he starts with apologies to the makers of the 1994 movie, "The Madness of King George.") Anyway, here goes: Finally, Bush is told 'no' The ruling on detainees at Guantanamo showed that presidents also must play by the rules. By Leonard Pitts Jr. <!-- begin body-content -->Leonard Pitts Jr. is a Miami Herald columnist With apologies to the makers of the 1994 film, it's never been "the madness of King George" that troubled me. No, it was the arrogance, a hubris so awesome and awful that you tended to forget that George is not, in fact, a king but a president. One might have been forgiven for forgetting, since President George W. Bush has governed pretty much as a King George would have: by fiat and decree. So the Supreme Court's recent rebuke of the Bush administration and the administration's chastened acceptance of same comes like spring air into a musty room. Late last month, the high court, on a 5-3 vote, ruled that the president could not, on his sole authority, put detainees at Guantanamo Bay on trial before a military tribunal. The court found that the effort to do so violated both international law and federal statutes, a stinging rejection of the White House's attempt to expand executive authority. Last week, as a direct result of that ruling, the White House conceded what it has refused to concede for years: that the prisoners at Guantanamo are protected by the Geneva Conventions. It's not the specifics of the ruling that enthuse me. It is, rather, the fact that there's a ruling at all, the fact that somebody finally told Bush no. In so doing, the court reaffirms that which never should have been in question: Even presidents have to play by the rules. It's an elemental truth, but one that has been under assault and in doubt ever since Team Bush came to office. The most glaring example, of course, is its conduct of the War on Terror, where the president has claimed for himself the virtually unfettered right to surveil and detain in violation of established law and custom. The electorate, cowed to silence by fear, watches complacently. Anyone who does dare raise a question or, God forbid, an objection, is shouted down by the president's catch-all excuse for excess: Sept. 11. But it's not just the war that showcases the president's disdain for rules. It's, well... everything. It's his intrusion into the Terri Schiavo affair. It's the administration's habit of quashing scientific reports that conflict with political needs. It's Bush's Education Department paying columnist Armstrong Williams to say good things about the No Child Left Behind law, stomping basic tenets of journalistic ethics and federal law. It's his administration's habit of providing "news" videos to broadcast outlets, which air them without revealing that the "reporter" works for the White House. Indeed, for all the blather we've suffered these last years about the sins of so-called "activist judges," the plain fact is that what really endangers us is an activist president, a man who evidently believes he can do what he wants when he wants. As much as his sycophants like to portray this bullheadedness as evidence of presidential resolve, what it actually illustrates is disdain, the imperial hubris and messianic mind-set of a fellow who believes himself on a mission from the Almighty and, therefore, not to be troubled by such small niceties as what is customary or legal. So the Supreme Court's ruling is about more than just the fate of the Gitmo detainees. It is a stop sign for a runaway administration, a reminder that this is still a country of laws, not men. Somebody pass the word to King George: At the end of the day it turns out that he's just a president after all. <!-- end body-content --><!-- begin body-end --> __________________ I will be riding this Sunday, September 7th, in the *Tour de Pink* cycle classic to fight breast cancer. I will ride in honor of MaripositaII's mother who is currently fighting this disease. To sponsor my ride and join in the fight, please go to my personal sponsorship page.

07-23-2006	#11 (permalink)
Jacko añejo Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 17,932	Interesting report here by legal counsel for two of the detainees....what if there is any merit to this? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The media and public fascination with who is detained at Guantanamo and why has been fueled in large measure by the refusal of the Government, on the grounds of national security, to provide much information about the individuals and the charges against them. The information available to date has been anecdotal and erratic, drawn largely from interviews with the few detainees who have been released or from statements or court filings by their attorneys in the pending habeas corpus proceedings that the Government has not declared “classified.” This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government’s own documents. This Report provides a window into the Government’s success detaining only those that the President has called “the worst of the worst.” Among the data revealed by this Report: 1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. 2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. 3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified. 4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies. 5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants. __________________ 9/19 and 9/20- 2008 North Carolina Peep Meet!!! Last edited by Jacko : 07-23-2006 at 11:38 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

07-23-2006	#2 (permalink)
sctx political anarchist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Body in San Marcos Tx....Tankah in my mind Posts: 27,098	so the screams to put these guys on trial will cease and the detainees will be detained until our troops are out of the field......cool

07-23-2006	#12 (permalink)
PlayadelSoul Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: We'll know when we get there, We'll find mercy Posts: 8,965	Are Sundays now anti Bush circle jerk days Stewart seems to be catching up.

register to remove these adverts