The big story for Fox News, this Sunday, was the perfidy of the New York Times.

The SCOTUS decision on the Guantanamo detainees wasn't so much treated as an after-thought than as part of the same subject - why are these people, liberals, the far left, Democrats, of whom the New York Times is the perfect embodiment, so determined to thwart all Bush administration efforts in the "War on Terror," which are only meant to protect Americans from the evil ones.

The first guests were Senators Lindsey Graham and Jack Reed.

Graham found himself trying to thread the same needle as McCain on This Week.

Working hard not to express too much anger or dismay, Graham's major point was to portray himself and the Republican Party and Bush himself as completely within the mainstream on issues of the rule of law. Graham expected us to believe him because he'd tried to get the Bush administration to see that its greatest strength in doing what might be deemed necessary in the War on Terror, and in Iraq, presumably, though Iraq wasn't mentioned, is to be found in consulting with congress.

As we would expect, Chris Wallace didn't ask Graham why Bush had failed to take that advice.

Now, of course, the President will consult congress, Graham will pretend that such was always the President's intent, and in no time at all, Republicans will agree on a set of guidelines which will allow Bush to do just what he has been doing.

To be sure, Graham spoke disapprovingly of torture, and approvingly of humane treatment, but it was also clear that what he has in mind, what he has always had in mind, is to give a legal rationalization for behavior that is just plain old fashioned unAmerican.

As with McCain, but more forcefully, Graham came down hard on the "breathtaking ramifications" of Justice Stevens' citation of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Graham used that word "breathtaking" three different times. That a primary aim of any legislation Graham authors or mid-wives will be to eliminate those ramifications no one should be in doubt.

Graham was at great pains not to appear to be making a political issue out of the decision. "This is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, it is an American issue, and yes, we need to treat detainees fairly, but we need to protect the nation." (an approximation)

Don't be fooled. Rove, Bush, and Cheney will do as they please, and Graham won't mutter a syllable of criticism. There was a hint of a threat, too, in the way that Graham reassured his audience that what needs to be legitimated, needs, also, to be done quickly, with a minimum of effort, or lengthy discussion, and if the Democrats are smart they'll go along with the program.

Wallace was loathe to let go of the political angle - and he presented Senator Reed with the proposition that Democrats were in danger of being pegged, once again, as weak on matters of security.

Senator Reed is nothing if not laid back, and he remained provocation-proof. Yes, Democrats will cooperate in conforming procedures of detention and interrogation with this new SCOTUS decision, but there was no indication that he or any Democrat is ready to rubber-stamp the administration’s wanton disregard for due process concerns of any kind, or the administration’s policy on interrogation techniques, and he explictly stated that whatever configuration of guidelines is arrived at, it should be consistent with the fundamental international law of war, upon which both the Geneva Conventions and our own UCMJ are based.

Reed was also asked to respond to the Pelosi/Boehner exchange, which Wallace incorrectly restated as Pelosi's belief that Al Qaeda was entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Conventions. Reed backed up Pelosi; at the very least, these detainees have a right to some form of trial, some form of hearing, else how do we know who they are, or that they are terrorists.

On the NYTimes, Graham went with the Republican talking points - we've lost a valuable tool in protecting ourselves against those who are out to get us. Frankly, this sounded terribly hollow, and almost silly.

Reed put the blame on the secrecy of the Bush administration, just where it belongs.

The roundtable was Brit Hume, Nina Easton of the Boston Globe, William Kristol and Juan Williams.

Do I really need to tell you what was said?

Hume and Kristol were both dismissive of Stevens' opinion on Hamden, especially so as regards the Geneva Conventions, labeling it an act of pure overreach by the court, although Stevens' argument was misrepresented by both pundits. Kristol expects the Republican congress to overrule the opinion legislatively.

Hume did have one original observation, when he found a contributing factor to the nonsense of this decision to be the Democrats' defeat of Robert Bork. Anthony Kennedy was the substitute, and he's all over the place; you can't count on what his opinion is going to be, whereas with Bork...

Do I need to tell you what about this formulation is inconsistent with everything right-wing neo-cons like Hume and Kristol had to say about pinning SCOTUS nominees down on how they view major issues sure to come before the court? Or the way in which Hume’s comments on Bork make has of the conservative insistence that original intent doctrine of constitutional interpretation is about getting away from results-oriented court decisions?

Nina Easton had nothing of particular interest to say, nor did Juan Williams, but all agreed the Democrats could be in trouble if they seek to do anything but curl up and let the Republicans do anything they want to do to those 460 men being held in Guantanamo. Kristol looked forward to a no-win debate in which Democrats would either have to admit Bush has been right this whole time, or else that the Democratic Party is on the side of al Qaeda.

The panel's thoughts on the NYTimes were entirely predictable recitations of the talking points you will have heard countless times by now, and will hear again countless times, until a new outrage catches the attention of the wingnutosphere.