There is a cooler gambit in play:
The Senate voted Thursday to strip captured "enemy combatants" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of the principal legal tool given to them last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts.I can appreciate that our friends over at the New York Times may not spend much time becoming conversant in american culture, heritage, and the rest of the things that they would like to destroy as a part of their WhateverOnWhomever as the Evil Liberal Media, but they might want to pause longer and think a bit about how american constitutional law works.
If approved in its current form by both the Senate and the House, which has not yet considered the measure but where passage is considered likely, the law would nullify a June 2004 Supreme Court opinion that detainees at Guantánamo Bay had a right to challenge their detentions in court.
In its June 28, 2004, decision in Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the Guantánamo base was not outside the jurisdiction of American law as administration lawyers had argued and that the habeas corpus statute allowing prisoners to challenge their detentions was applicable.
[ cf American Pravda ]
The Ruling of the Supreme's with regards to the writ of habeus corpus is not one of those majikal and mythical made up rights that was created out of whole cloth by the 'black robed tyrannts' - but is reasonably well grounded in american legal history.
So our friends in the Senate may also wish to pause a little longer and consider if they really want to openly attack the right of habeus corpus in their desperate efforts to support Torture. They might also want to work out if they really think that anything less than a constitutional ammendment banning the right of habeus corpus would actually overturn the US Supreme Court. I mean without one minor, and obscure constitutional ammendment, the Dred Scott Ruling would be the law of the land for a REAL OWNERSHIP society.
Update: forgot to include the scary thought part of the piece, the June 28th, 2004 ruling of the Supreme's that asserted that american law is american law in the areas that americans control - such as Gitmo - in spite of the efforts of the administration authorities to assert that some how majikally they could create their own lawless zone where anything could go...