It seems Jon Stewart is right...

And the purpose of this Administration's foreign policy is to spread irony around the world, not democracy.

Democracy Now! brought this to my attention this morning.

Apparently, since the Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo prisoners having a right to access to American courts, the Pentagon has sent no more prisoners to Gitmo. (This despite the fact the prisoners there have been denied access to courts via administrative procedures that undoubtedly violate the Court's ruling. Contempt of court is one thing; contempt for the rule of law is what we used to call a "constitutionaal crisis. But that was then, this is now.). While this is opposed by the CIA and the State Department, Rummy backs it; and we all know where the center of power is in this Administration:

The proposed transfers would represent a major acceleration of Pentagon efforts that have transferred 65 prisoners from Guantánamo to foreign countries. The population at Guantánamo includes more than 100 prisoners each from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a senior administration official said, and the United States might need to provide money or other logistical support to make possible a large-scale transfer to any of those nations.

Although the article draws a distinction, this is clearly just an extension of the theory of "extraordinary rendition." The reasons for this are clear, and have nothing to do with the reasons given by the White House. Indeed, the Pentagon has now said so:

Defense Department officials said that the adverse court rulings had contributed to their determination to reduce the population at Guantánamo, in part by persuading other countries to bear some of the burden of detaining terrorism suspects.

Not to be overlooked is that the special review boards themselves have been declared unconstitutional by a trial court. That, of course, is on appeal. But the Pentagon is now quite upfront about what they are doing, and why. "Rule of law" is so damned inconvenient, they are doing all they can to avoid its application.

Irony has often been declared dead. When do we just admit that "rule of law" has been tossed on the garbage heap of history as "quaint"? And when do we then decide, that might not be such a good thing?