(no subject)

[winterbadger]

from the BBC

The Supreme Court has pulled the rug out from under President George W Bush in dramatic fashion with its verdict that he has no authority to try terror suspects in military tribunals.

And in his first public appearance after the announcement - alongside Japan's Junichiro Koizumi - he showed how rattled he was by the news.

"It was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship," he said, trying to highlight the remarkable turnaround in relations between the US and Japan - not America - since World War II.

And his annoyance showed a moment later when not just one but two reporters asked him about the ruling.

He said he had not had time to take it in, finishing his answer to the second journalist with: "I'm sorry you wasted your question."

...

But the president has made it clear that he will continue trying to find a way to try the detainees by military tribunal rather than releasing them, giving them courts martial or prosecuting them in the civilian court system.

In other words, he's a stupid, petty, stubborn law-breaker. And our president. Yay. :-(

Comments

[jan-rosencrantz.livejournal.com]

thing is, neither the US or UK voting systems are actually democratic in the slightest. It now effectively boils down to convincing he media you've won. Whether or not you got enough votes to genuinely have a mandate for Government is absolutely irrelevant.


The Blair issue is down to both the history of Labour and the lack of Constitutional opt-out.
Since Labour have *never* had a Govt. for more than a single term before, there is no internal system for replacing incumbent Leaders. The leader has to step down. There has been no NEED to oust a leader before.
And the only way to constitutionally depose a PM is by General Election. Guess who calls that? [OK technically the Queen could, but she never will]

[winterbadger]

Since Labour have *never* had a Govt. for more than a single term before,

Well, they did in 1960s and 1970s, they won back to back general elections twice. OTOH, they were all under the same leader (Harold Wilson), who was then replaced by Callaghan, after which the long dark Thatcher years ensued.

there is no internal system for replacing incumbent Leaders.

I'm not sure if that is so much of a hurdle; I think the more serious problem is a lack of credible, organized opposition to Blair within the party. Too many Labourites (from what I read, anyway) seem to feel that if they replace him they will be admitting defeat, that they need to nail their colours to the mast. IMO, *not* replacing him is admitting defeat, and is likely to semi-permanently damage the credibility of the party as a whole.

And the only way to constitutionally depose a PM is by General Election. Guess who calls that?

Yes, but the PM cannot delay elections for more than 5 years. He's been very clever about timing them, but he can't delay forever. And if enough backbenchers had the guts to support a vote of no confidence, the government would be forced to resign and call an election. The key is for the MPs to lose confidence in thier leader. So far, that hasn't happened.