As I feared, the administration did itself and the country no favors by announcing it was applying the Geneva Conventions to terrorists in supposed accordance with the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision. The New York Times news and editorial pages have conducted themselves shamelessly throughout this war — campaigning for the weakening of the president's commander-in-chief powers during war and publishing some of our nation's most important war secrets. They've been deceitful. They've been gratuitous. And it has now seized on the administration's announcement to demand even further capitulations.

Today the Times editorializes, in part: "The administration has professed its allegiance to the humane treatment of prisoners and to the rule of law before. But repairing the constitutional balance of powers and America’s profoundly damaged global image demand more than lip service." More here .

Short of Bush's impeachment, the immediate "redeployment" of our troops to the continental United States, and the executive's voluntary surrender of presidential powers to activist judges and left-wing lawyers, the Times and its ilk won't rest. But, of course, they support our troops, are strong on national security, believe in separation of powers, and are patriotic. Just ask them.

Of course, the Times' editorial board consists of a former ACLU member, a former Clinton administration official, and other leading lights. Need I say more? You bet. In future posts. This is the same media corporation that undermined the war in Vietnam and pushed the Holocaust to the back pages. It has a pathetic record, yet lectures the rest of us about right and wrong. The Times doesn't seek to merely report the news or comment on it, it seeks to influence our nation's future. As such, it requires careful monitoring by we, the people.

UPDATE: On other sites, the contributors to which I respect greatly, an effort is made to downplay what the administration did yesterday in tying the humane treatment of detainees to the Gemeva Convetions and then insisting that the Supreme Court compelled this result in its Hamdan decision.  This is inaccurate.  Yes, the administration announced early on that it would treat detainees humanely, but it specifically rejected the view that such treatment was necessitated by the Geneva Conventions.  But yesterday it announced that it would comply with the Geneva Conventions requirement to treat the enemy humanely, as supposedly ordered by the Court.  While it may be logical to extent the Hamdan reach to detainee treatment generally, the decision dealt with military commissions and there is no such legal requirement — at least not yet.  And the administration did not have to go as far as it did, giving up a principled argument that matters greatly.  For years it has fought the good fight against the enemy's lawyers and activist judges, and it should continue to do so every step of the way.