Dubya Walked So Trump Could Run: Part 1003.

As you read this, please note that this NBC headline is not from last week.

It's from 20 years ago.  NBC, August 8, 2006:

Administration seeks to weaken war crimes law

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments...

Bush regime panic was triggered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which ruled that the Bush regime's existing military tribunals for Guantánamo detainees violated both U.S. military law and parts of the Geneva Conventions.

The Bush Regime's reaction to that ruling was on par with General Saito's reaction to the Conventions in The Bridge on the River Kwai

Since it was pretty clear Republicans were widely expected to get their asses kicked in the 2006 midterms and lose control of one or both houses of Congress (sound familiar?) with Republicans facing the likely end of four years of unified control of Washington.  Before that happened the Bush regime hurry-up-quick rammed through the  Military Commissions Act.

Remember: it authorized new military tribunals, drastically narrowed the definition of punishable war crimes under U.S. law, gave the president broader authority to interpret the Geneva Conventions, and attempted to block detainees from challenging their detention through habeas corpus petitions in federal court. 

There was little debate or somber reflection of what this might mean.

Instead it flew through the Republican-controlled Senate on September 28, 2006.  The vote was, Republicans: 53 despicably predictable yesses, 1 no, 1 absent,  Democrats: 12 shameful yesses, 32 no, and Independent: 0 yes, 1 no.

Then it flew through the Republican-controlled House the very next day, September 29, 2006.  The vote was, Republicans: 218 despicably predictable yesses, 7 no, 5 not voting, Democrats: 32 shameful yesses, 162 no, 7 not voting,  Independent: 0 yes, 1 no 

Then George W. Bush signed it into law on October 17, 2006.  But in 2008, the Supreme Court (No kidding!  Guess you had to be there!) ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the law’s attempt to strip detainees of habeas corpus rights was unconstitutional.   The court was split 5-4, and it will surprise absolutely no one that the four Republican-appointed dissenters were John Roberts,  Nino Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

You see kids, the depraved values and trajectory of the Republican party were there for anyone to see who cared to look with honest eyes.  A Republican president and his blood-thirsty regent who believed the president should be able to rule as an emperor (as long as he was a Republican.)  A Republican Congress eager to let the president do it (as long as he was a Republican.)  And a slim Republicans minority on the court -- two appointed by Dubya, one appointed by Dubya's daddy, and one appointed by Dubya's daddy's boss -- willing to bless that unholy Republican aspiration.   

I keep 20 or 30 of these examples in my back pocket for when our Never Trump supervisors figuratively put their feet up on our coffee table, swill our good beer and begin to wax nostalgic about the "good old days" of the GOP before Trump.

I usually get through three or four examples before they block me and stomp away.  Which is weird, 'cause didn't you want to talk about the past?

Burn The Lifeboats