Detainee Bill Shifts Power to President

[fjc]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — With the final passage through Congress of the detainee treatment bill, President Bush on Friday achieved a signal victory, shoring up with legislation his determined conduct of the campaign against terrorism in the face of challenges from critics and the courts.

In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them — albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment — beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners.


..The bill, which cleared a final procedural hurdle in the House on Friday and is likely to be signed into law next week by Mr. Bush, does not just allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it also strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30detain.html?hp&ex=1159675200&en=4b0651b4401c1962&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[LynnTheDem]

1. Treason.

Domestic enemy.

What is America going to do about it?

[C_U_L8R]

2. How can this possibly be Constitutional ????

Anyway you look at this heinous piece of shit legislation
it seems to trample every principle of our founding fathers.

Can't the Supremes kill this? And the bigger question is... will they?

[LynnTheDem]

3. It isn't.

And that's the whole point; bush's "law" says bush is above the Supreme Court, above the USC. bush determines what the USC means.

What's the diff between a "decider" and a "dictator"?

[C_U_L8R]

6. but will the urinary executive be put in his place?

seems the court is getting loaded with pro-dictatorship judges.
Do they have the guts to smack the chimp down??

[benfranklin1776]

4. This article is wretchedly written

It completely ignores the substance of the criticism raised by Professor Ackerman and the almost seven hundred law professors that wrote in the strongest language possible to oppose the bill. The article instead focuses on "how much the President won" as if the shredding of the Constitution and the enactment of the American version of "the Enabling Acts" is something that is to be treated as if Junior Bush had won some kind of sporting event. The focus of the article was on how it impacted HIM not our country. The fact is all of America lost with this and the paper had a duty to explain just why it was that these critics were so concerned and how significant a blow to our constitutional framework that this horrid enactment truly was. Instead they gave us political spin.

[Benhurst]

5. How could this be, coming from the New York Times?

:sarcasm: