Bush suffers court setbacks in war on terrorism

[rodeodance]

Source: reuters




Bush suffers court setbacks in war on terrorism

By James Vicini 2 hours, 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush's broad assertions of power in his war on terrorism are under assault by U.S. judges who have rejected his indefinite imprisonment of enemy combatants and the domestic spying program.


A pair of recent rulings, one from military judges and the other from a U.S. appeals court, delivered new legal setbacks for Bush's tactics in dealing with terrorism suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in the United States.

"In case after case, this nation's judicial branch has told the administration that it may not trample on fundamental rights in the name of national security," said Hina Shamsi of the New York-based group Human Rights First.

A federal appeals court panel in Virginia ruled 2-1 on Monday that Bush could not declare civilians in this country to be enemy combatants and have the military hold them indefinitely.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070617/pl_nm/bush_security_court_dc;_ylt=AuyYf7N9_l640CYqmCjS2K6s0NUE

[n2doc]

1. I hate the article's title- this is a war on freedom, not terrorism

And these are victories for the causes of freedom and justice.

[ixion]

5. and these are not "assaults by judges" but rather

judges actually doing their job rather than being BushCo cronies or enablers.

[PSPS]

6. That struck me too. That plus the article's first paragraph reveals their anti-american bias.

[wtmusic]

7. Note the critical difference between the title and the first line:

"war on terrorism" vs. "HIS war on terrorism".

Ain't my war.

[Cha]

8. I hate 'em, too...it's catapulting the

freakin' propoganda.

"War On Terror" should read.."War On Humanity!" as well as "War On Freedom".

bushits exponentially propogated terrorists in the Middle East with the bombs they dropped on Iraq for no FUCKING REASON.

The corporatemediawhores are catapulting the propoganda of the house of bushit.

[blueinindiana]

2. Why is restoring the constitution called a 'setback!'

I think I have entered the twilight zone in this country where the press thinks its 'ok' for someone to held against their will without charges indefinitely and spying on americans with out due process of law.

WTF!

F all of you GOP loving bastards I hope someday YOU are Put in jail Indefinitely and and then put into a STRESS position!

F all of u!


and u to Lieberman! You support the same kind of ideology that gassed millions of jews!

[mrcheerful]

3. Well it is a set back to the GOP and their supporters after all.

It means that constitutional rights come before the will of the ruler and GW has no legal claim to his ideal that war means he doesn't have to abide by the law of the land.

[ananda]

4. who needs no stankin courts

I mean.. exactly what has Bush done differently
since he started all this mess four years ago?