Bush Gets His Way

Remember Habeas

Warren Richey writes in the Christian Science Monitor: "In a significant but little-discussed move, the Bush administration is asking Congress to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by Guantánamo detainees challenging the legality of their confinement. . . .

"Legal analysts say the measure has sparked surprisingly little debate among lawmakers. For example, the main alternative to the administration's bill, legislation sponsored by Sens. John Warner (R) of Virginia and Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina, also calls for withdrawing federal court jurisdiction to hear such cases.

"Nonetheless, there is opposition.

"'We are told this legislation is important to the ineffable demands of national security, and that permitting the courts to play their traditional role will somehow undermine the military's effort in fighting terrorism. But this concern is simply misplaced,' writes a group of prominent retired federal appeals court judges, in an open letter to members of Congress. . . .

"The judges say the proposed legislation may violate the Constitution's mandate that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'

"The so-called Great Writ is a bedrock principle of liberty dating to 1215 and the Magna Carta. It entitles a prisoner to demand to be brought before a neutral judge to force the government to prove the legality of his or her detention or be set free. It is the quintessential check on executive power."

A New Battle Cry

Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times: "President Bush began a blistering new political offensive on Thursday, asserting that if Democrats won control of Congress from Republicans it would mean higher taxes, less money in the pockets of working families and damage to the economy.

"The speech by Mr. Bush here, in which he belittled Democrats as 'the party of high taxes,' signaled what Republicans described as a new phase of the White House's fall campaign, as Republicans begin to combine their emphasis on national security with a tough new emphasis on the issue that unites them more than any other, taxes."

October Surprise?

Ronald Kessler writes for the right-wing Newsmax Web site: "In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an 'October surprise' to help win the November congressional elections. . . .

"Rove is not saying what the October surprise will be."

Rove told Kessler: "I'd rather let the balance [of plans for the elections] unroll on its own."

Poll Watch

The White House that officially doesn't give a hoot about polls . . . sent out an e-mail to reporters this morning trumpeting Bush's bump in approval ratings.

"Presidential Job Approval Ratings Continue To Rise" says the release from the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives.

Graymail Watch

Could a Scooter Libby graymail attempt work? His legal team won a potentially significant legal victory yesterday, over his ability to use classified materials in his trial in the CIA leak case.

Matt Apuzzo writes for the Associated Press: "Prosecutors have said Libby is trying to torpedo the case by demanding documents that are too sensitive to be released at trial. It's a tactic known as 'graymail' and the goal is to get a case dismissed. . . .

"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald proposed a strict legal test that would have forced Libby to prove that his need for the records outweighed the government's need to keep them secret.

"U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton rejected the prosecutor's proposal. When considering what classified information should be admissible at trial in Libby's defense, Walton said he'll apply the standard rules of evidence, which generally provide defendants documents that are relevant and helpful. . . .

"Walton . . . said the government must weigh the importance of prosecuting the case against the need to keep state secrets.

"If secrecy is more important, the government can withhold any documents it chooses, Walton said, even though that might mean the case is dismissed."

Clinton Watch, Part I

Former president Bill Clinton on Iraq, in an interview with CNN's Larry King Wednesday night:

"KING: Vice President Cheney said, knowing all he knows, he'd still go back. Would you?

"CLINTON: Of course he would. No, I never was in favor of doing it before the U.N. inspectors finished. I had a totally different take on this. I . . . .

"KING: Why would you say 'of course he would'?

"CLINTON: Because they didn't -- because the evidence has made clear now that he and the other proponents of the Iraq war did not care whether he had weapons of mass destruction, did not care whether he was involved with Sept. 11, did not care whether the evidence showed any of this or not, that they had made their mind up in advance that this was the thing to do, that it would help to make a new Middle East, it would strengthen America's leverage against Iran; it would, you know, shake up the authoritarian regimes and increase our leverage to create peace between the Israelis and the Pakistanis -- Palestinians.

"And I think they thought it might clean their own skirts a little, since most of what Saddam did that was really terrible he did when he had the full support of the Republican administration of the '80s, of which Dick Cheney was a part."

Clinton Watch, Part II

Glenn Thrush writes for Newsday: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is daring President George W. Bush to stump in New York for her Republican opponent -- joking that Clinton would even consider paying for Bush's airfare if he stumped in Dubya-phobic Gotham. . . .

"White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore responded, 'There are a number of places we're confident that Republican candidates would be willing to pay for Hillary to campaign.'"

Froomkin on the Radio

I'll be on Washington Post Radio today shortly after 2 p.m. ET.