The High Court's Hamdan Power Grab (John Yoo Op-Ed)

Los Angeles Times ^ | July 7, 2006 | John Yoo

[RWR8189]

A PRESIDENT responds to an unprecedented war with unprecedented measures that test the limits of his constitutional authority. He suffers setbacks from hostile Supreme Court justices, a critical media and a divided Congress, all of which challenge his war powers.

Liberal pundits and editorial pages would have you believe this describes President Bush after the Supreme Court last week rejected military commissions for trying terrorists. But it just as easily fits Abraham Lincoln when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves or Franklin D. Roosevelt when he made the United States the great "arsenal of democracy" in the lead-up to World War II.

The court's decision in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ignores the basic workings of our separation of powers and will hamper the ability of future presidents to respond to emergencies with the forcefulness and vision of a Lincoln or an FDR.

Long-standing U.S. practice recognizes that the president, as commander in chief, plays the leading role in wartime. Presidents have started wars without congressional authorization, and they have exercised complete control over military strategy and tactics. They can act with a speed, unity and secrecy that the other branches of government cannot match. By contrast, legislatures are large, diffuse and slow. Their collective design may make them better for deliberating over policy, but at the cost of delay and lack of resolve.

[Diogenesis]

Kennedy: "I must protect the terrorists who are MUCH more important
than any murdered, terrorized, and tortured Americans."

[Nomorjer Kinov]

W should proclaim that the court acted unconstitutionally when it ruled in a case where it was specifically forbidden by Congress. He should tell Congress he is protecting their legitimate Constitutional role as a check on another branch of government ... Congress is just as powerful and the Supreme Court.

Even the dems wouldn't dare try to impeach him as he protects Congress' role in the government.

[Jacquerie]

Even the dems wouldn't dare try to impeach him as he protects Congress' role in the government.

The rats would drool with anticipation. If they take the House this fall, impeachment will be first on their list.

[Graymatter]

If they take the House this fall, impeachment will be first on their list.

Count on it. I'm surprised it isn't written into their platform. Whenever I talk/write to a lib, I'm told they'll "take back" the country in November, and they invariably add that the first order of business would be to prosecute George Bush (and company). They are dreaming of an American Nuremberg.

[Congressman Billybob]

Amazingly accurate article to appear in the LA Times. Obviously, Yoo is not one of the paper's regular writers. Still, it is good to see one honest appraisal of this terrible, and anti-constitutional, decision of the Supreme Court.

P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "The Lesson of the African Queen"

[Ragnar54]

The legislation should include using eminent domain to seize the homes of Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg in order to hold Gitmo detainees.