Milbank Is Always Wrong.

It's Bush's Way or the Highway on Guantanamo Bay

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; Page A02

As Congress opened hearings yesterday on the treatment of terrorism detainees, the Bush administration's view was neatly summarized by Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department lawyer serving as lead witness. "The president," Bradbury said, "is always right."

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court rebuked the administration by rejecting military tribunals for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and forcing President Bush to get approval from Congress. But the officials who came before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday -- Bradbury and Pentagon lawyer Daniel Dell'Orto -- were unrepentant.

"Surprising and disappointing . . . without historical analogue" was Bradbury's view of the high court's ruling on the Hamdan case.

Rather than regard it as a defeat, Bradbury said it presents Bush with an "opportunity to work together" with Congress.

The ranking Democrat, Patrick Leahy (Vt.), fished for any admission that the administration's legal view had been wrong. Bradbury retorted: "It was completely reasonable."

When Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested a framework for future tribunals, Dell'Orto cut him down. "I have many concerns about taking that approach," he said.

The witnesses were even dismissive of the new Pentagon memo applying the Geneva Conventions to all detainees for the first time. "It doesn't indicate a shift in policy," Dell'Orto said.

And in a veiled warning, Bradbury told Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) that Bush still didn't need Congress. "The court did leave open the theoretical possibility that the president could come back on his own," he said.

Why is it that someone who allegedly makes his living from writing doesn't even know the definitions of the words he uses? Hey Dana, for your edification and enlightenment, I give you the following definition pulled from the pages of Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.

"re-buke, n. a sharp repremand; a chiding; reproof for faults; reprehension."

That varies quite a bit from the ruling produced by the SCOTUS in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The "witnesses" were exactly correct. Additionally, to anyone with half a brain (whoops Dana, I'm afraid that leaves you out of the picture) who read the complete ruling it was patently obvious, as Justice Scalia stated, that the court was in violation of its jurisdiction. Congress had clearly intended for the SCOTUS to be out of the loop in cases such as Hamdan.

I suggest you go back to crayons and coloring books and leave the thinking to us adults.

Full Story: Administration "Unrepentant" Over Hamdan Case

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below