I greatly respect Mr. Greenwald's legal accumen, but his political analysis in this case (i.e. that this plays the terror card to the benefit of Bush and the repubicans) is completely wrong. Coming at this point in time, this is quite shocking, in that this same tired line has been trotted out before and proven consistently wrong by polling data.

What is sad is that it comes from the proressive side, and what is pathetic is that this argument likely will be used again by Democrats as another excuse to "keep the powder dry" (while they waste bullets firing on an ABC TV "docudrama").

This Bush admission is grounds for impeachment. Dems could re-show the TV clips of the Administration's lies to the press and Senate testimony - break out the Bybee and You memo's.

The proposed legislation would put US troops at risk as a result of its radfical departure from Geneva, US law, and US military traditions. Dems sould easily trot out a few military people to explain and support this, as well as several republican Senators.

Retrto-active immunity fr war crimes and a redefitjin of torture? Are you kidding me? Dems could bring back pictures of Abu Graib and tell the american people that this is not within the scope of George Bush's defintion of torutre.

The scope of the bill with respect to the US domestic civil liberites ramifications are frightening.

These are all serious vulnerabilities Dems need to exploit instead of another avoidance strategy (or fighting the issue on Bush's "war on terror" field).

Bering it on!

Wolfe

Right. Secret prisons. Torture. Got it. But for some reason, no one in the press seems to have pulled this particular passage out of Bush's speech (full transcript available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html ):

So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act -- so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.

The need for this legislation is urgent. We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives. My administration will continue to work with the Congress to get this legislation enacted -- but time is of the essence. Congress is in session just for a few more weeks, and passing this legislation ought to be the top priority.

Just how out of touch with the average voter does a president have to be, to insist that legislation aimed at circumnavigating the Geneva Convention should be Congress' top priority? Thanks for pointing that out, Mr. President. Congress might have foolishly wasted what little time remains in the 2006 legislative session on trivial matters, such as social security or health care!

It's Article I of an Impeachment Declaration.

In December 6, 2005, Condoleezza Rice emphatically denied that the United States engaged in extraordinary rendition to any countries known to engage in torture. Alberto Gonzales and other administration flaks then basically parroted this claptrap. Bush then unequivocally denied that the U.S. engaged in torture, all the while insinuating that The Washington Post was guilty of treason for reporting the truth.

Now we know better, straight from the horse's ass himself. And while I appreciate Glenn Greenwald's article, I'm curious as to why he didn't address this question:

Was Bush lying last year, or was he lying yesterday in front of that contrived audience of 9/11 victim's family members?

After all, if we can impeach a president for lying about consentual violations of an intern, surely we can impeach a president for lying about surreptitious violations of international and federal law, don't you think?

The article states: “Republican strategists have made explicitly clear that their strategy for the midterm elections, now just two months away, is to highlight the terrorist threat to the fullest extent possible.”, and, “equating the threat from al-Qaida to that posed by the Nazis during World War II and by Communists under Lenin and Stalin”.

Let’s take the Republicans at their word. What does this imply?

It implies that after 5 years of effort by the most powerful country in the history of planet Earth, a small group of people are still a threat to every citizen of the United States of America. With the cumulative spending of a trillion dollars, with the work of millions of people for over 1,800 days, the threat from a few thousand terrorists has increased every single year.

Given this, the Republican leadership has failed unconditionally.

If security is the most important national issue after 5 years of trying to secure this country, then it is clear no solution can be found with these Republicans. They have failed their charge.

“Let them flaunt their failure, but not ‘guise as fortune.”

The American system of justice has served pretty well for centuries. It's up to the Democrats not to defend Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, but the process of criminal justice that exists outside of Bush's black ops.

These fascist bastards have turned FDR's immortal words inside out, and now all we have is fear, and the fear of fear itself. That's what comes of having a deserter in the White House.

Greenwald hits all the major points spot on.

The public had begun to doubt that anyone being held at Gitmo was actually a terrorist and had expressed its relief that SCOTUS was finally putting some muscle back into the separation of powers. Bush has tanked in his popularity and in the perception of his competence.

What else could they do? They had to either produce a miracle in Iraq, arm wrestle Ahmadinejad into submission, or produce the head of Bin Laden on a silver platter. Since they, after all, are truly incompetent -- not just putting on a show to lure Democrats into a false sense of security -- they had to conjure an illusion to capture the attention of the public and rally the Republican base.

The illusion is that Gitmo will now house some real terrorists, who will genuinely deserve to be prosecuted in a kangaroo court. When Democrats object to giving Bush the power to convict the terrorists through such sleight of hand as hearsay testimony, secret evidence, and hog-tied defense attorneys, Bush and his assassins will pounce on them.

We are heading straight down the same cynical path that we've trod so many times before. Any ideas how we can avoid the same outcome, this November?