Analysts Discuss Guantanamo Tribunals, Supreme Court Rulings, Media Leaks

JIM LEHRER:

And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Mark, the Supreme Court military tribunals decision, legalities aside, what's the message of what the court today?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:

┬áWell, the message is that the — to the Congress, that you have a responsibility, and the administration does not have a blank check, in the words of Justice Breyer, just to totally circumvent, whether it's the Geneva convention or U.S. constitutional law.

This administration since 9/11 has pushed, I think, assiduously, conscientiously, aggressively the expansion of executive privilege and executive authority, executive power. And this was the first time they've put a constitutional break upon it since — with one exception. The only time Congress asserted any authority of its own was John McCain's torture amendment and legislation which passed at the end of last year.

JIM LEHRER:

Big blow, David, to the president's authority, as President Bush sees it, at least?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times:

I think pretty significant. It's certainly the end of an era.

I think they had tried to run — the administration had tried to run an executive branch-only kind of war on terror, and I think they did that for understandable reasons.

Go back to 9/11. People really thought the White House was going to get hit again in the subsequent weeks. And many people thought they would die going to the White House or going to the Capitol, and they felt we got to act, we got to act, to hell with the rules.

Well, it's now been four and a half, five years, and now it's time to regularize it. And so the courts are really saying, "Hey, you got to go back to Congress. You got to work within the system."

And I'm struck by the widespread relief, even among Republicans, who say, "OK, we understand why they were so aggressive, but now it really is time to do this in a normal way with the checks and balances."

JIM LEHRER:

Why didn't, in this last four and a half years, didn't the administration go to Congress on its own? Why did it wait for the court to do this in such a dramatic way yesterday?

DAVID BROOKS:

I think there are two reasons, both within the administration. I think there are some within the administration, most famously in the vice president's office, who say this should be the power of the executive, this should simply be the executive's authority.

I suspect — and I don't know this for a fact — but I suspect that there are others in the administration who said, "We're going to act this way. We're probably going to get scaled back by the courts, but we're going to act this way anyway because we think it's important to do it given the enemy."

JIM LEHRER:

And so force the hand of the courts?

DAVID BROOKS:

Right. Essentially to take advantage while they could, suspecting they'd probably get rolled back.

MARK SHIELDS:

Overlooked in this, Jim, to a considerable degree, beyond the politics, is this is a vindication of the military justice system. And these Navy lawyers — I mean, you talk about taking on Goliath. They took on the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, and they took on the administration's top guns, and said…

JIM LEHRER:

The lieutenant commander of the Navy, who was one of the lead lawyers…

MARK SHIELDS:

The lieutenant commander of the Navy, God love him…

JIM LEHRER:

… for Hamdan, yes.

MARK SHIELDS:

That's right, and stood up and said: There is a responsibility. There is regular order here. There are laws. They have to be recognized.

And, you know, it's a wonderful thing that we still produce men of this kind of profile in courage, because it did require a profile in courage.