The Pentagon's top uniformed lawyers took issue Thursday with a key part of a White House plan to prosecute terrorism detainees, telling Congress that limiting the suspects' access to evidence could violate treaty obligations.
-- Pentagon Lawyers Warn Against Evidence Limits
While the Mets were basically putting the final nail in the Braves' coffin, El Decider was giving another speech to promote his anti-terror policies ... or, as someone rightly noted, another political speech. [Two game sweep by Triple AAA call-ups, who admittedly were major league retreads with talent. BTW, doesn't the SNY roving reporter -- who does a good job -- look a bit like Conan O'Brien?] Meanwhile, the NY Daily News had a series of articles yesterday concerning the poor air quality of Lower Manhattan, especially as it affected rescue personnel. To refresh, remember how EPA head Christine Whitman assured everyone all was well shortly after 9/11? Apparently, this was about as true than some scenes of the upcoming ABC docudrama.
The reports -- honestly, I find reading/listening to the guy as tedious as it is annoying -- discuss such things as his claims that those terrorist suspects kept hidden in secret CIA locations (can we call off the hounds now respecting arresting those reporters who discussed this "secret" news?) were not tortured. They were submitted to "tough" but "legal" questioning and will now (eventually) be sent to trial. The "trial" should be by military commission pursuant to his administration's bill, one that members of the "dippy left" (to cite one moron) like Sen. Lindsey Graham (former JAG) find problematic. [We have seen that his positions are not exactly ideal in a justice sense, which only underlines the extreme position of the administration.] Again, from the lede article:
"I believe the accused should see that evidence," said Maj. Gen. Scott Black, the Army's Judge Advocate General. Black and the other lawyers said such an allowance was a fundamental right in other court systems and would meet requirements under the Geneva Conventions.
Meanwhile, Bush feels Congress should support his "protect non-torturers by passing legislation that make them immune for doing something that really they didn't do" legislation. Again, there are some problems with pesky Republicans who might find it a bit problematic. See here.
I see this whole thing a bit like the "prevent defense" used by winning teams to run out the clock by delaying the other team's scoring opportunities so long that even if they do score, so much time expired, that it is likely to be a pyrrhic victory. Given the bend over nature of this Congress and the fact it is already approaching late 2006, if not exactly a "Two Minute" defense, we are approaching the end game in some sense all the same. [Football season starts today. Brother Bowl this weekend between the Giants/Colts while the Boy Wonder, the Jets coach that looks a bit like Kevin James from The King of Queens has his first game against one of the teams about as lowly as his -- the Titans.]
We saw this before: Homeland Security Department, 9/11 Commission, anti-torture bill, over the top actions on judge nominations, combatant tribunals, sharing various "torture memoranda," and so on ... they hold, hold, hold, until they cannot hold any more. Then, they give up a bit, but only about the bare minimum, as shown by how they handle losses in court respecting their national security campaigns. And, in the process, of course, they spin it as much to their advantage as they can. Thus, opposing an over the top anti-union measure in the Homeland Security Bill is somehow a traitorous move. In other words, nothing new, nothing to interrupt midday soaps for. And, of course, no desire to actually seriously work out a real sensible position that makes this country appear to be lead by people who respect human rights and the rule of law.
Such a position will surely not please me in all particulars -- one person noted that it is likely that it would lead to some executions, which never appeals to me -- but it is what true leaders do. It underlines the multi-leveled nature of why this administration is so horrid. Its overall policies are distasteful as are how they are carried forth. Of course, the leading individuals also leave lots to be desired, even if idiots think one or the other would be a fun person to go out for a beer with (you know, I just love going out for a beer with alcoholics ... it's so fun ... look at the pretty pictures!). You know, not the one who deep down we knew would have major influence -- no we kind of thought him a bit creepy. But, I digress.
Rice now apparently is comparing opposition to their policies to those who opposed the Civil War or something. Let's hear it for those Copperheads!