"Tender About Terrorist's Rights"

Betsy Newmark writes about the power of the presidency. She also says that Bush's desired legislation will have to get around McCain and Graham, those tender-hearted fellas. She quotes Mario Loyola at the The Corner:

The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court's ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes.
And if that were not enough, the President also frontally attacked the Hamdan ruling's potentially chilling effect on CIA extraordinary interrogation techniques, by arguing that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is too vague, and asking Congress to define clearly the criminal law limiting the scope of permissible interrogation.

Taken as a whole, the President's maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.

Some of the most interesting action came after her post, in the comments:

Should I interpret Mrs. Newmark's commentary and quotes from others as reflecting a Libertarian/Republican/Conservative consensus that information trumps -- not to put too sharp a point on it -- rule-of-law? Pastor Ray | 09.07.06 - 9:44 am | #

Pastor Ray, there is no "rule or law" for unlawful combatants, just as there is none for spies in wartime. When you catch them, line them up and shoot 'em. That's been the "rule of law" in cases like this for hundreds of years. Only in the fevered brain of lefties have spies and unlawful combatants suddenly been assumed to have the same rights as citizens charged with crimes. rivlax | 09.07.06 - 9:53 am | #

Pastor, What right does the Supreme Court have to force the equivalent of a treaty with non-state actors? Cite the article of the Constitution, please. You can't, because it's not there. These guys are entitled to be executed under terms of the Geneva Convention. Nothing more. MarkD | 09.07.06 - 9:53 am | #

We are housing and feeding people in Guantanamo bay that are stateless; the countries of their birth don't want them back. No Geneva Convention applies to them, any more than International Law ever applied to pirates in the old days. Tom TB | 09.07.06 - 10:55 am | #

Pastor Ray: You really do need to pull your head out of your butt. These people have no rights. They relinquehsed them when they started murdering men, women and children whose only crime was to try to carry on a normal life. People like you are the primary reason terrorists have succeeded in disrupting the lives of so many.I hope the next time we have a terrorist attack you are at ground zero. Chuck Charles Bannerman | 09.07.06 - 11:03 am | #

If Bush fails to get Congress to give him (no that's not right) the nation the right to try these non-state actors in military courts, one thing can be certain. No terrorist will survive capture. We will lose intelligence but we will not lose the right to effectively defend ourselves from these thugs. Gary B | 09.07.06 - 11:30 am | #

I want to second Gary B.'s point. Elites--whether politicians, judges, Ivory Tower professors--rarely consider the law of unintended consequences. The Supreme Court ruling that extended Geneva Treaty protection (POW status) to terrorists and non-uniformed combatants was a green light to military brass to tell their boys to not bring them any prisoners, hint hint. addison | 09.07.06 - 12:48 pm | #

Addison, a lesson I expect will be used with increasing frequency in the future. sb | 09.07.06 - 1:38 pm | #

As Betsy notes, it was an important speech and it was literally interesting to listen to. Incredible new details on the terrorist interactions, skillful use of info from KSM and the other beasts, foiled attacks, death threats against Gitmo guards, etc. Morevover, Bush was forceful, discussed strategic, economic, humanitarian and legal considerations of dealing with these terrorists and did so with an impressive knowledge of the history and carefully reasoned explanations of where the administration was going. Still further, unlike any MSM source, he correctly described the basis of the legal challenges that had been raised, correctly described the court rulings, and explained the government's response, including the balancing of security and civil rights concerns.

The Pastor's comments essentially sum up the silly Leftist thought process.