home

Waas on Guantanamo

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 07:11:04 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Murray Waas is blogging about Guantanamo, Colin Powell, McCaffrey, and Ignatius.

The New York Times reports Bush claims the Supreme Court backed him on Guantanamo.

"It didn't say we couldn't have done -- couldn't have made that decision, see?" Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Chicago. "They were silent on whether or not Guantánamo -- whether or not we should have used Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made."

Nice try, Mr. President, but Guantanamo wasn't the issue in the case -- the use of military tribunals was, and there was no approval of them.

< Bill Clinton Lists Questions for Rove on PlameGate | Journalism Training and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Waas on Guantanamo | 21 comments (21 topical)
    Re: Waas on Guantanamo (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 07:37:27 AM EST
    What a friggin' thimble-dick. The guy is pathologically incapable of facing reality. Frightening.

    Re: Waas on Guantanamo (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 07:49:48 AM EST
    Nice try, Mr. President, but Guantanamo wasn't the issue in the case -- the use of military tribunals was, and there was no approval of them.
    Yes, but how does that connect to his actual statement here
    "They were silent on whether or not Guantánamo -- whether or not we should have used Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made."
    What about that is inaccurate? The central issue of the Hamdan was not Gitmo but had the SCOTUS felt it appropriate to comment on the situation, who honestly doubts they would have? TL is trying to put words into the President's mouth for no other reason to confuse his statement.

    Re: Waas on Guantanamo (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 07:55:33 AM EST
    TL is trying to put words into the President's mouth for no other reason to confuse his statement. No...You are spinning and tryng to put words in TL's mouth. And bush is spinning. Trying to make it seem that the Supreme Court said something it did not.
    The question of whether Mr. Bush had properly used Guantánamo Bay to house detainees was not at issue in the case. At issue was whether the president could unilaterally establish military commissions with rights different from those allowed at a court-martial to try detainees for war crimes.
    Re: Waas on Guantanamo (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 08:25:11 AM EST
    Yes croc_a_choda, you are right. They also did not tell Bush that he was wrong to continue reading My Pet Goat while the WTC was aflame. Or that he was wrong to eat a pretzel. The SC has approved 99.9999% of Bush's actions because they didn't mention them. What a fine record. I think the correct term is non-sequitur. Extra pathetic because he used it to squirm out of culpability.

    Re: Waas on Guantanamo (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 08:38:20 AM EST
    Did Hamdan suggest or imply Gitmo should not be used to detain enemy combattants or moreover, that it should be closed?

    Re: Waas on Guantanamo (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 08:40:10 AM EST