Monday, July 10, 2006

What warnings?

Back in 2002, the President was warned that the policies he was looking at enacting for detainees at Guantanamo Bay would lead to severe political backlash, along with possible declarations of illegality for the activities. Opponents of the harsh treatments stood firmly on the side of thought that said even terror suspects are protected under Geneva Convention. GDub, and his minions, disagreed, and have been working to establish a legal "outer space". The recent Hamdan decision by the Supreme Court should have theoretically put a stop to the bickering, especially as they stated that putting the detainees up before a military tribunal was illegal and in violation of our own policies.

It didn't, as Georgie took a route different from a semi-expected "let's pick up our toys and go home" approach. Nope. GDub has firmly kept himself in the same spot, it's just that now he's inviting different kids to play with his toys. The Court's decision has led to the President and his political allies doing everything just a few steps shy of calling political enemies traitors for attempting to curtail his powers, and the judges of the Supreme Court are simply an "imperialist judiciary [that believes war] should be within its grasp." Or, at the very least, that's the position espoused by professor John Yoo, who played a large part in the writing of the anti-terror documentation.

And what have we learned from this? We've learned that when the Supreme Court makes a decision in favor of the administration and its policies, they're heroes. When they rule against GDub and cronies, they're traitors and "imperialists". And we've also learned that it doesn't really matter, because there's currently a push going on to rewrite pieces of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the document that made it illegal for Bush to put detainees before tribunals, by giving presidents the power to toss any criminal they feel before a military tribunal.

What else have we learned today? Well, we've learned that potential criminals who are awaiting trial for money laundering could still get elected to office. That's right. Tom Delay is saying that he may have no choice but to run for the position he vacated when the came under legal scrutiny in the first place. Of course, given the (potential) history of money laundering, it probably wouldn't be all that difficult to raise the funds needed to make the run.

Do you smell that on the breeze, America? That's freedom. Or methane gas.

No comments: