The Black Republican

This may be a bit of a stretch of wishful thinking (then again, maybe not), but suspend your disbelief for a little while and follow the logic just so we can discuss the potential ramifications.

Earlier today, the President announced that 14 "high-value" prisoners are being transferred to detention at Guantanamo Bay, "including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept.11 attacks, Abu Zubaydah, and senior al Qaeda leader Ramzi Binalshibh."

While the detainees may not be household names, they were top aides to Osama bin Laden, and the veritable "crown jewels" of the military operations that have been conducted in Afghanistan.

Many detainees were given the legal status of "enemy combatant," which includes both lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants....

Bush called on Congress to "list the specific recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies."

He also asked that Congress "make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act, our personnel fulfill America's obligations under Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions."

Last, he requested that Congress "make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as grounds to sue our personnel in courts - in U.S. courts."

The president also criticized the decision of the Supreme Court that hindered previous attempts to prosecute the prisoners. In late June, the Supreme Court decided to block military tribunals for detainees, stating the prisoners were subject to international law and the Geneva Conventions.

"We have a right under the laws of war, and an obligation to the American people, to detain these enemies and stop them," Bush said in his afternoon address.

This all sounds very close to dancing on the edge of a knife. The President is clearly framing the argument in such a way that he's got lots of wiggle-room. For what? Yes, of course, he's on offense against the Dems in Congress, making them put-up-or-shut-up in terms of their support for the war, and trying to hamstring further efforts to play the Abu Ghraib/torture card.

But is that it?

The Supreme Court decision was a major rebuke to the Bush administration, as it required the president to first seek the approval of Congress before ordering prisoners to be tried for war crimes.

The decision forced the administration to reconsider the legal battle against the prisoners, and made their future uncertain.

Bush urged Congress to make the legislation a top priority in the next session as the issues are "urgent" and "time is of the essence."

What exactly is so urgent? What schedule are we trying to beat?

Why, in two short months, we're going to have an election, of course. And the fate of our Republic might very well hang in the balance. The Dems have been crowing that they'll take back Congress and "hold the President accountable". It's clear the New Copperheads have taken up sides against the Administration, whatever the cost. Republican morale has been at a low ebb, and the Fourth Estate has become the Fifth Column.

What can the Republicans possibly do to break the stranglehold of the Vietnam Syndrome and defend America from its enemies in The Novemeber Campaign?

I think it possible - and the more I read, the more I think likely - that the President is setting us all up for an October Surprise unlike anything the Democrats have ever dreamed up. Nothing we've heard today contradicts the core of the Administrations' contentions all along - and in fact, they are bluntly asking Congress to give them a green light for something spectacular. An October Surprise without any pretense of being an accident.

Before the 1970s, the category of unlawful enemy combatant was widely understood and accepted as a critical part of the laws of war. Such individuals do not fight on behalf of sovereign states, have no regular and transparent command structure, do not wear uniforms, do not carry their arms openly and do not obey the laws of war. As a result, they present a particularly dangerous threat to civil society in general and the civilian population in particular.

To deter this type of illegitimate, asymmetric warfare, unlawful combatants have historically been denied the rights of prisoners of war and could be severely punished after the most abbreviated of proceedings. By the mid-20th century, custom entitled them to certain minimum due process protections — notice of the charges, an opportunity to make a defense (not necessarily to a lawyer) and to a hearing, but little else.

So here is my hypothetical exercise:

What if, after a few short days, or perhaps a full week before a military tribunal conducted according to the freshly-minted rules laid out by Congress, and hardly a month past the 5th anniversary of the September 11th attacks he masterminded, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is convicted of war crimes, sentenced to execution, and hanged by the neck until dead in a courtyard of the Guantanamo Bay detention center? If this was carried out just a few days short of the election, how many Republicans would shrug off the despair of the illegal immigration debate, shrug off the depressing weight of deficit spending, and happily charge to the polls to reward the Congress that tossed aside the oppression of political correctness to deliver to our September 11th dead their long-delayed and well-earned justice? How many?