« Republican Advantage, Republican Disadvantage | Main | Midterm Matters: Pew Poll »

September 14, 2006


Okay, what's interesting here is how the press will play it. They've been pretty locked into a "this will benefit Bush and squelch Dems" analysis. But now their St. Colin has come to the other side. Will they consider him as infallible as they did in early 2003 at the UN?

What I'm basically saying is, where is their greater loyalty? -- to their sense of civic identity that's wrapped up in worshipping Colin Powell's every utterance, or to the concept of Bush the great infallible leader against terrorism?

the pew poll you pointed me to, demtom, is another chance for the media to fail the fairness doctrine.

And, sad to say, I'm sure they're up to the task (of failing)

You get the picture from from the online WSJ policy page:

Bush Detainee Plan Faces Setback
A Republican-led Senate committee defied Bush and approved a bill he opposes on the treatment of terror war detainees.

Bush, Roh Hope to Restart Talks
Bush and South Korea's Roh said their nations are committed to bringing North Korea back to stalled negotiations over its nuclear-weapons program, ignoring differences about the best way to do that.

Republicans' Strategy May Backfire
The Republican Party leadership won the primary battle in Rhode Island, getting Sen. Lincoln Chafee past a conservative challenger. But the effort cost the part nearly a million dollars and may have alienated conservative voters.

Republicans Break With Bush Over Tribunals
Top Republican senators are defying the president on proposed terror-tribunal rules, and the outlook for his surveillance-authorization bill is still clouded despite party-line committee backing for the legislation he wants.

I must have lost the plot somewhere. Didn't we go through this last year - McCain pushed his own anti-torture legislation, Bush signed with his own signing statement? How is this diffrent from that?
Was that anti-torture law and this is, like, pro-Geneva?

What really worries Bush/Cheney here is the possibility that one of the CIA torturers might be hauled before the International Criminal Court at some point, and as part of a defense, produce evidence that specific kinds of torture were approved at "the very highest levels." It won't happen soon -- but it could happen in another administration.

The problem is this. If they use the Senate proposed tribunal system, and an effort to introduce coerced evidence occurred, that could be extrapolated to an International War Crime -- but only if the normal US courts did not take action against the person accused of torture or ordering torture. (Under the International Crimial Court they only have jurisdiction if the regular national court system does not engage.) If coercion came in as evidence in a Tribunal, it would go to the possibility of the Criminal Court accepting a case against a torturer.

Believe me, this is one where Bush's two cute by half reading of law will come back and bite his butt.

"Denn wie man sich bettet, so liegt man" .....

That's how Brecht and Weill put it in Mahagonny.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad