Court and Spark: Gitmo Stonewall and Supreme Swift-Boating

Pentagon on Supreme Court's Gitmo Ruling: "Who cares?"

From the NYT: "If they rule against the government, I don't see how that is going to affect us," the commander, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris, said Tuesday evening as he sat in a conference room in his headquarters. "From my perspective, I think the direct impact will be negligible."

The Defense Department repeated that view on Thursday, asserting that the court's sweeping ruling against the tribunals did not undermine the government's argument that it can hold foreign suspects indefinitely and without charge, as "enemy combatants" in its declared war on terror.

So that's OK, then. Naturally, a ruling "against the government," doesn't affect the Pentagon – because Rumsfeld's Castle is a government unto itself, unbound by the petty chains of law that simpering civilians try to put around the lusty sinews of war-fightin' he-men. And of course, as the Pentagon notes, the most important thing is that the Bush Regime can continue its Nazi/Stalinist/al Qaeda/Vlad the Impaler/Ghenghis Khan/ Assyrian/ Babylonian/ Cro-Magnon policy of grabbing "suspects" and holding them "indefinitely without charge."

Thank God for that! How could we ever defend the enlightened values of our 21st century civilization if we couldn't stick foreign darkies in hidey-holes until they rot?

Meanwhile: When I first heard of the ruling, I thought: Wonder when the swift-boating of John Paul Stevens will begin? For just as sure as Little Dubya loves peanut-butter sandwiches (with the crusts cut off, of course), the 86-year-old Republican Justice who wrote the decision is going to be dragged through the Bushist slime machine, and in short order.

Little did I realize that the smear campaign actually began in the Court itself, in the dissent by Clarence Thomas, the sick joke played on the nation by that other smirking, cy
nical bastard named George Bush who befouled the Oval Office with his presence years ago. But as we learn from the American Constitution Society (via Atrios), Thomas – an incompetent blowhard who rode to power on the right-wing escalator after a career of providing aid and comfort to the deep-cover racists in the party he so avidly served – took a nasty swipe at Stevens in his frothing dissent. Taking a melodramatic turn by reading out his hissy fit from the bench for the first time in his 15 years on the Court, Thomas cited Stevens' "unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare" as the basis of his anti-Bush ruling.

But as ACS points out, Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945 – years during which a serving military man might have indeed garnered at least a modicum of familiarity with the realities of warfare. Thomas, of course, is yet another hard-right chickenhawk who never served – yet presumes to lecture a World War II vet (and Bronze Star recipient) about war's reality.

Really now: has there ever been a political faction that lived more in its own little fantasy world? Has there ever been such a collection of cowards who blustered so hysterically about their own macho all the time? How on God's earth did a great nation fall under the sway of such shallow fools?
***