Overreach Overturned

Lane also notes: "Legal analysts said that the court's opinion could lead to a challenge to the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program, because wiretapping is already covered by a federal statute, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, just as military commissions were, in the court's view, covered by the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]."

David E. Sanger and Scott Shane write in the New York Times: "The Supreme Court's Guant?namo ruling on Thursday was the most significant setback yet for the Bush administration's contention that the Sept. 11 attacks and their aftermath have justified one of the broadest expansions of presidential power in American history.

"President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney spent much of their first term bypassing Congress in the service of what they labeled a 'different kind of war.' Now they will almost certainly plunge into negotiations they previously spurned, over the extent of the president's powers, this time in the midst of a midterm election in which Mr. Bush's wartime strategies and their consequences have emerged as a potent issue."

Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz write in The Washington Post: "For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it.

"Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. . . .

"For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him."

Congress Watch

So what will the Republican Congress do? Quite possibly, run to Bush's rescue -- with gusto. It is, after all, a campaign year; not a good time for nuance.

Doyle McManus, Peter Wallsten and Richard B. Schmitt write in the Los Angeles Times: "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. . . .

"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.

"White House political strategist Karl Rove has said repeatedly that the party's fall campaign will hammer the message that Democrats operate with a 'pre-9/11' worldview, and Republicans will attempt to paint Democrats critical of military tribunals as being soft on terrorism.

"Still, whatever the immediate political implications, moving concrete legislation through Congress will add a major item to the White House agenda, and some Republicans, especially in the Senate, have grown increasingly wary of the administration's efforts to enhance executive power."