Signs of Life in Congress [Barf Alert]

NY Times ^ | 7/9/06 | NYT Editorial Board

[Oshkalaboomboom]

Congress, which is supposed to push back against executive attempts to amass overweening power, has hardly played its proper role when it comes to Bush. In the past, when evidence arose that the president had overstepped his authority, the Congressional response was generally to look for ways to make whatever Mr. Bush did retroactively legal. But the Supreme Court's decision on the Gitmo detention camp seems to have jolted even some of the most loyal Republicans back to reality. They are vowing that this time, they will not merely rubber-stamp presidential overreaching. Soon, Americans will get a sense of how seriously to take this newfound spine.

The court ruled, in a decision so strong that it sent shock waves through Washington, that Bush violated the Geneva Conventions and American law when he created commissions to try detainees outside established judicial procedure. The court rejected his claim of a power to handle prisoners any way he wants and said it was up to Congress to set rules.

This week, three Congressional committees will hold hearings on the issue. The White House predictably asked Congress simply to legalize Mr. Bush's policies. But a wide range of senators rejected that and called for a serious look at the basic question: whether and how existing rules should be changed to deal with terrorists who are not in any army.

The court said the military commissions, which Vice President Cheney and his team cooked up without bothering to consult military lawyers, violated the UCMJ, which has rules of evidence and process similar to civilian law. Congress could simply apply the military court to the Guantánamo prisoners. But the code was created to try members of the United States armed forces and some experts make convincing arguments its use would not be appropriate for terrorist suspects.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

It really shows the true colors of the NYT Editorial board when they expend so much effort on behalf of the "hundreds of innocent men" who were sent to Gitmo. If only they could judge our leaders as fairly as they pronounce innocence on the poor souls at Gitmo who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. What a joke these people are.

[brain bleeds red]

I think liberals derive an almost orgasmic pleasure everytime they get to accuse Republican Congressmen of "rubberstamping".

[Cobra64]

If this were to happen to the NYT building, then what?

Bush's fault?

[Darkwolf377]

Interesting how they rush to express compassion for the "hundreds of innocent men" imprisoned in a pretty cushy place (considering they otherwise would have been shot on the battlefield) than for Bush's efforts against terrorist attacks on this country.

What I mean is, every chance they get, the NYT gives fair, compassionate opinions about the Gitmo gang, and every chance they get, they attack Bush and try to sabotage his anti-terror efforts.

Now, which would a normal person see as the one the NYT supports?

[Hartmann]

Now, which would a normal person see as the one the NYT supports?

Day by day, it becomes more blatantly obvious that the NYTimes is on the side of the terrorists, for reasons best known to themselves.