Circles

This Slate piece about today's oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Gitmo military tribunals does an excellent job fusing several of the most salient themes of America in the B*sh years. Among W's most enduring institutional legacies will be: getting a solid conservative majority among the Supremes (all appointed for life, of course); the undermining of basic concepts like habeas corpus and "torture is wrong"; and the intelligence-slandering, straight-faced deployment of interminable circular arguments before even the most (literally) select group of American citizens.

"Solicitor General Paul Clement has 45 minutes to represent the Bush administration, and here is where the smoke and mirrors kick in. He cites the executive's longstanding authority to try enemies by military tribunal. When Justice John Paul Stevens asks for the source of the laws that such tribunals would enforce, Clement replies that the source is the "laws of war." When Stevens asks whether conspiracy is encompassed within the laws of war, Clement says that the president views conspiracy as within the laws of war.
"Neat trick, no?
...
"And Stevens serves up another can't-have-it-both-ways query: When Congress takes away the courts' habeas corpus jurisdiction, "Do you say it's a permissible suspension of the writ or that it's not a suspension of the writ?" he asks.
"Both," replies Clement."

That's just a wee taste, the article puts it all into crystal context. Cheggit. Via Cursor. Pic from here via googleimages.