A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed (analysis Washington Post 6/30)

[stevedeshazer]

Ruling Emphasizes Constitutional Boundaries

By Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 30, 2006; Page A01

For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let them.

Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.

For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062902300.html

[aquart]

1. "Rebuffed"??? How civilized.

They violated the Geneva convention and put all US soldiers at risk. They need to be impeached, indicted, tried, and hanged.