*this* supreme court declared current practice had to be via Congressional

[papau]

Law - and that not having such a law made such jailing forever practices and torture rules "unconstitutional"" because in this case "no emergency prevents consultation with Congress" so "judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to deal with danger. Some read the decision as suggesting the provisions that a new law might have. However, the 6/29/06 5-3 decision did not say that without these provisions, any new law would be ruled unconstitutional.

The current Court majority has no love of the Bill of Rights beyond making sure those rights cover private property claims of Corporations. This new law's loss of habeas corpus — the demand for legal justification of one's imprisonment - is just our "Enabling Act". Indeed Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz - or Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volkgiven in German) was a simple grant of legislative powers to the government - meaning Hitler - now meaning the President - Bush. The US version adds to the 1933 concept a provision that tells the Courts they do not have a right to review actions of the President under this law - and indeed can not review this law - period.

Bush as a less murderous/evil Hitler, obtaining dictatorial powers using largely legal means while the media says nothing against the GOP's new laws, or cheers their passage on (the cheers coming from Fox/Washington Times/RW Radio Talk as usual), has become a valid comparison - albeit a comparison shouted down by our media. Those who said that 9/11 exposed a "failure" of the Bush administration are finally seeing just how successful Bush's pre and post 911 actions have been.

Justice Thomas in the 6/29/06 Gitmo ruling said the majority "openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the Executive's judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs." Justice Souter, one of the yes votes to stop the Gitmo assault on the Bill of Rights, said during the oral arguments "Whether or not the writ of habeas corpus was suspended, you are leaving us with the position of the United States that the Congress may validly suspend it inadvertently?" Well, Justice Souter will be happy to see that the suspension/termination of habeas corpus is no longer "inadvertent". The new law even applies to US Citizens as long as they are accused of being "enemy combatants". I guess that is because "military operations and foreign affairs" may have domestic critics that undermine the "war" effort, so we need to give the President this power to go around those pesky civil liberties, and jail those critics forever.

With today's makeup of the USSC, I give this destruction of the Constitution at least a 50/50 chance of being approved by this Supreme Court.