WASHINGTON — Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush has asserted almost unlimited authority to define the rules of what he calls "a different kind of war." Faced with the Supreme Court's rejection of administration policies on "enemy combatants" Thursday, the White House signaled that it had no intention of backing down.
Meeting the high court's objections required little more than having Congress put its stamp of approval on a system of military tribunals, the White House suggested. And some congressional Republicans quickly agreed.
"The Supreme Court did not require these people to be let go. They simply said, If you want to try them, Mr. President, you need to get Congress involved.' I agree," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former military lawyer, told CNN.
"Once we do that," he added, "I think this problem will be behind us."
He predicted hearings beginning as early as July, with a vote on a plan in September.
Nonetheless, the court's ruling unquestionably rejected the president's assertion of executive power. And the result may be an election year debate on some of the most basic, and controversial, tenets of the Bush presidency, including its claims of unfettered authority and its approach to international agreements such as the Geneva Convention.
In claiming broad latitude to act, Bush has relied on Congress' original authorization for conducting the war on terrorism. But the Supreme Court specifically said that act contained no explicit authorization to ignore existing laws on judicial procedure and hinted that it might take the same position on other assertions of executive authority on terrorism, potentially including spying on domestic communications and financial transactions.
The White House response was essentially to move the issue into the political arena by announcing it would seek congressional approval for its approach to prosecuting foreign terrorism suspects.
Thus far, the GOP-dominated House and Senate have given Bush almost everything he has asked for when it comes to fighting the U.S.-declared war on terrorism.
Republican strategists are likely to see huge advantages in moving such an issue into the realm of political debate before November's congressional elections. In that sense, Thursday's decision could be a political plus for the GOP.
