<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/washington/29cnd-scotus.html?pagewanted=print[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/washington/29cnd-scotus.html?pagewanted=print</a></p>
<p>Mmmh. I just read about it. It’s about time such a good development arrived. Hopefully this will teach the neocons in office that a system of checks and balances does exist in American government.</p>
<p>Seemed pretty simple to me. If it’s a “war” on terror, than those who participate are “enemy combatants”, covered by prisoner-of-war conventions. If it isn’t a war, than the Administration should stop claiming that it is.</p>
<p>Of course, there is the “war” on illiteracy (so we can lock up the teachers. ;))</p>
<p>What worries me (as a liberal) is that, if Roberts had participated, the vote would have been 5-4, and if and when Justice Stevens retires, the majority would presumably shift again in favor of the president.</p>
<p>mini, </p>
<p>Excuse me, I have considerable respect for the intellect you display on cc, so I need to ask you (speaking of literacy): Since when is “than” used in place of “then”?</p>
<p>A sleepy or distracted close-to-homonym typo, I would think. And a completely distraction to the more important issue at hand.</p>
<p>“President Vows to Pursue Tribunals” (USA Today)</p>
<p>Uh… I don’t understand. He already flaunts laws created by Congress, stating they don’t apply to him, but is he going to ignore the Supreme Court as well? Or am I missing something? Can he issue the equivalent of “signing statements” for Supreme Court rulings?</p>
<p>mini above has a good argument: If we are in a “war,” then these guys are prisoners of war. Bush wants to play this both ways, interpreting (or ignoring) laws as he wants.</p>
<p>“…protect, uphold, and defend the Constitution of the United States…”</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>How much fun is it to be King when you can’t make the rules up as you go along?</p>
<p>Homonyms are definAtely the problem! ; ) Maybe we should enunciate better…</p>
<p>No, too much work is the problem. I stand for UUU - universal unconditional unemployment - as the only social goal truly worth working toward.</p>
<p>But using Guantanamo for teachers captured in the war on illiteracy seems like a nice idea to me. ;)</p>
<p>The “war on illiteracy” equivalent to how the “war on terror” is being conducted would give us the authorization to spell words any way we like and slip in homonyms at will.</p>
<p>Remember MEOW? Should we revive it with gas prices being as high as they are? For the youngsters who’ve decided to poach on parental premises, MEOW stood for Moral Equivalent of War. No, Jimmy Carter did not coin the acronym, though he should have paid more attention to the way the initials combined.</p>
<p>Dadguy: We already have that with our fearless leader (e.g., words like “nucular” and “secetary”).</p>
<p>I think the move by the supremes is less than it seems, at least for the gitmo guys. Consider:</p>
<p>Congress debates for, what? two years for a bill?</p>
<p>Bill gets challenged in court. First round is moved, at administration request, to a jurisdiction where a decision takes two years. Appealed.</p>
<p>Appeal takes two years. Appeal the appeal.</p>
<p>Supremes take one year, remand it back to a different court to start over again (remember, that already happened)</p>
<p>New court cycle begins. In five more years, supremes rule that the congressionally sanctioned tribunals don’t pass constitutional muster.</p>
<p>Back to the drawing board…</p>
<p>…meanwhile, the prisoners have been slowly dying off…</p>
<p>…and by now, we’ve elected President Jenna Bush, who declares amnesty for the remaining prisoners (only two dozen left by now) and ships them all off somewhere overseas.</p>
<p>Well, Jenna is refreshingly straightforward when she stick her tongue out at the press.</p>
<p>Thedade,</p>
<p>We’ve already shown our willingness to forgive youthful indscretions. We’ve also shown that having the right lineage is VERY important.</p>
<p>Just remember, you read it here first.</p>
<p>I wonder how Harriet Myers would have voted?</p>
<p>We’ll never know, as Bush decided he would go along with someone who, in his mind, is less qualified and decidedly second-rate.</p>
<p>aren’t ppl starving still? yeah, thought so.</p>
<p>Speaking about the literacy thing…</p>
<p>Have you noticed the introduction of new words, or terms or meanings that have come up since 9/11?</p>
<p>Cops and firefights are now “first responders”.
Domestic security is now “homeland security” .</p>
<p>Less successful attempts at language change:</p>
<p>Calling terrorists “evildoers”. That’s not a wrong thing to call them but it sounds cartoonish: “The President decided on more unilaterial action when he learned that Lex Luthor and the Joker had joined Al Queda”.</p>
<p>My favorite: calling “suicide bombers” - “homicide bombers”. Also, not a wrong thing to call them, but it’s like leaving out the suicide aspect makes them even more evil.</p>