Supremes Rule For Terrorists, Against Bush
The US Supreme Court on June 29, 2006 ruled 5-3 the Bush tribunals for Gitmo prisoners were not authorized by Congress and violated international law:
The dissenting opinion points out that nothing prevents the Bush administration from seeking Congressional authorization.
Clearly the US Supreme Court remains soft on terrorists, even after adding Alito and Roberts. Isn't it obvious that in order to win this war we have to abandon all the rule of law that previous generations of Americans have died to protect? The terrorists aren't bound by our laws, so to level the playing field we shouldn't be either.
In fighting the courts and the law on this and other issues, winning isn't as important as the fight itself. George Wallace fought court-ruled integration by personally blocking blacks from entering college buildings. Ultimately the law did prevail in that instance, but Wallace's standing with his base was much enhanced by engaging in the 'good fight'.
Bush too will improve his standing by this fight: conservatives and dixiecrats will admire his tough stand against terrorists and the rule of law, while dissenters will appear weak on terrorists. Wallace ultimately lost his battle because popular opinion actually went against him.
Today, popular opinion may well support Bush and his power grab in the name of national security. A Republican Congress may well change the law in Bush's favor, further enhancing executive power and eroding personal freedoms. Democrats will find in awkward to resist without appearing soft on terrorists.