Breaking: Supreme Court says Gitmo detainees must have access to US courts Update: Scalia: “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
posted at 10:45 am on June 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that the unlawful combatants held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba must have access to American courts to challenge their detention. The ruling eliminates three attempts by the Bush administration and Congress to establish military tribunals that would handle the adjudication of terrorist cases without involving access to the civilian justice system:
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court’s liberal justices in the majority.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” …
In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.”
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.
This will probably derail the hearings that had just begun at Gitmo for six members of the 9/11 conspiracy. By granting the unlawful combatants habeas corpus, the court has now eliminated the main reason for the military tribunal system — and for that matter, Gitmo itself. If the detainees can access American courts, they may as well be held on American soil.
The previous two rulings that struck down the tribunals forced the government to quickly pass laws that allowed for them. The Supreme Court has basically ruled that the Constitution applies worldwide rather than just to the US and its residents, which makes it pretty difficult to go back to the well a third time. Also, with very little time remaining in the Bush administration, they will not have enough time to push through a third attempt to address the Court’s concerns — and this ruling appears to be much broader than the two that preceded this one.
It seems absurd to apply criminal law to unlawful combatants captured during hostilities abroad. Will they require a Miranda reading, too? Do we have to bring the soldiers and Marines who captured them to the trial? In our 232-year history, when have we ever allowed that kind of access to enemy combatants not captured inside the US itself?
Update: Bear in mind that we do not yet have the full opinion, and it may be less egregious than what we have heard thus far. However, the quote from Kennedy certainly suggests an expansive ruling.
Squid Shark says in the comments that the work-around would be to classify them as POWs and be done with it. That presents a few problems, too. It eliminates the status of unlawful combatant, which then encourages all forces to eschew uniforms, legitimate state backing, etc etc. The unlawful-combatant designation and its circumscribed rights in Geneva intended to penalize those who hide among civilians for their attacks. Are we now to forego that?
Update II: The opinion can be read here. From a cursory reading, the Court says that Congress cannot act to suspend habeas corpus except through the Suspension Clause, which requires an explicit act noting invasion or rebellion. Would infiltration suffice, or does Congress even need that much reason to invoke the Suspension Clause?
Scalia’s dissent is especially scathing:
Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional” test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other Constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes [sic] important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.
Update III: I’ve read through both dissents, and I have to say that I’m struck by the tone of Scalia and Roberts. Not only do they dissent, they practically accuse the majority of deliberately misreading both law and precedent, especially regarding Eisentrager. They point out that the dissent in that case explicitly noted that the decision gave aliens in detention by American forces outside of our own sovereign territory no habeas rights at all, and yet the majority used it to apply those rights in this case. Roberts scornfully argues that the Court “cashiered” the military tribunal system before it had a chance to show that it addressed detainee rights properly.
I’d say that the end of this session couldn’t come quickly enough for these justices.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Nice going SCOTUS. You just made it nearly impossible for our soldiers to do their jobs.
pullingmyhairout on June 12, 2008 at 10:47 AM
That is great. Let’s get them free housing and welfare as well.
/
carbon_footprint on June 12, 2008 at 10:47 AM
The beginning of the end. For a free USA that is. A very sad day. Rights for POWS? INSANE! I am glad to be in my 50s and been able to enjoy America at its best. But I fear for my children and grandchildren.
bill30097 on June 12, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Thanks a lot. Non citizens are now protected under the US constitution. It’s a great success for terrorists worldwide.
I hope the 5 who decided to vote against their own country while in a time of war get a nice Ramadan card this year from all their grateful supporters.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Oh,boy!
richardcamera on June 12, 2008 at 10:49 AM
No. It doesn’t ‘eliminate’ anything. SCOTUS has no power to do such a thing. The executive branch can simply ignore the SCOTUS opinion.
But it likely won’t. It’s gutless.
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Weight of Glory on June 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM
It sure seems that way.
And as long as we don’t fight it and lift a finger at all to make sure there is someone to fight on our behalf, it will get even worse. Will there be any Supreme Court vacancies in the next 4 to 9 years?
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Tennis courts? Basketball courts? Food courts?
Might as well be.
Forget about SCOTUS. This is SCREWEDUS. The idiots.
Shy Guy on June 12, 2008 at 10:51 AM
In-frakin-credible. I think it may be time to trot out the Hudson - game over clip.
ncc770 on June 12, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Bleeding heart liberals will be the downfall of this great nation.
txsurveyor on June 12, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Then we’d be just like the UK!
p0s3r on June 12, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Wow, just wow…
So, I guess we have to do what the Geneva Convention says about ununiformed combatants… and just shoot them there?
This could end up with a Constitutional crises.
Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Is that what you think?
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Insanity. It’s so nuts I can’t even comprehend it.
JamesLee on June 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Is this the beginning of the end?
d1carter on June 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM
What’s next, constitutional protections for those ATTEMPTING to become illegal aliens?
singlemalt_18 on June 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM
RUH ROH!
Vincenzo on June 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM
From now on we’ll never take custody. We’ll hand them over to a “friendly” government and deal with them on foreign soil outside of any safeguards or oversight. Nice move Liberal Justices. Your order will have the opposite of your intended affect. Yet another reminder why I think an Obama Presidency would be a lasting disaster.
TheBigOldDog on June 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM
This decision may actually doom many combatants, because it makes clear that the military should take no prisoners. And if the military does take prisoners, whenever possible those prisoners should be turned over straightaway to a foreign government.
paul006 on June 12, 2008 at 10:54 AM
That thought quickly sprang to my mind.
wccawa on June 12, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Hilarious! The legal profession just locked in a hge revenue stream here.With 10’s of thousands of POW’s in a real war, each one will have a right to the court system of the US.
mylegsareswollen on June 12, 2008 at 10:54 AM
It’s getting harder and harder to be an optimist about things these days. Our own Supreme court says that all people in the world have the same rights as American citizens.
It you want to be an American, don’t illegaly cross from Mexico. It’s easier to just wear civilian clothes and shoot at an American soldier. Ignore the Geneva Convention, get the rights of an American citizen.
What’s next? We should let other countries vote in our elections because they “have rights too?”
tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 10:56 AM
I think the work around here is to classify them POW’s and call it a day.
Keep in mind that we still do not have the full opinion. Everything is being filtered through some idiot reporters in the media.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM
What does McCain say?
rhombus on June 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM
UN-F_CKING-BELIEVABLE!
On Fox now: The SCotUS just ruled that the GITMO detainees have the same rights to American courts as any American citizen! THANK YOU BILL KLINTON! THANK YOU JIMMY CARTER! THANK YOU DEMOCRAT VOTERS AND ANYBODY WHO VOTED FOR PEROT! Thank you morons for putting these idiots in office who put these dimwits on the Supreme Court!
Tony737 on June 12, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Mark this date down on your calender, the day it all began to fall apart. I pray I’m wrong, but we could be witness to the end of America. Please God let us all be blowing this out of proportion. This is all the more reason we MUST prevent Obama from becoming president! Imagine him filling 2 or 3 S.C. seats!
Tony737 on June 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Absolutely un-freaking-believable.
wytammic on June 12, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Quite so. This SCOTUS opinion is absurd to the point of obscenity. I am interested to know what the dissenting opinion stated, and how the court was split - the usual suspects?
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 10:59 AM
To those of you who considering sitting out the election this year…..THINK AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! WTF!!!!!
Winebabe on June 12, 2008 at 10:59 AM
There is nothing in here about Geneva POW’s wait till the full opinion comes out.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 10:59 AM
NO MORE CATCHING TERRORISTS! FROM NOW ON, 2 IN THE CHEST AND 1 IN THE HEAD! F-CKING KILL ‘EM ALL!
Tony737 on June 12, 2008 at 10:59 AM
So now people can cherry pick which world laws the want to abide by? They can commit a crime outside the US and use out Constitution, then commit a crime here and say they require Mexican rights and counsil? And the topper is they can take our soldiers and throw the Geneva conventions right out the window.
Rbastid on June 12, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Disgusting. These animals should have been lined up and shot, then buried covered in pigs blood a long time ago.
kcluva on June 12, 2008 at 11:00 AM
The courts in this country are destructively sick and the disease is spreading. At times I simply can’t believe what’s happening to us.
rplat on June 12, 2008 at 11:00 AM
John McCain speaks in 30 minutes.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Okay, sorry to be naive but why is this bad?
offroadaz on June 12, 2008 at 11:01 AM
If I was in charge of this country, there wouldn’t be any Guantanamo in the first place, because I wouldn’t let the Muslim terrorists step on any American facility, anywhere around the world.
I would’ve gotten the information I want from them on the spot and would’ve put a bullet in their heads after torturing them, making them regretting the day they were born.
But because we became a nation of sissies, America is going down.
Enjoy!
Indy Conservative on June 12, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Echoing Romeo13,
guess this means we aren’t in a war after all, this is law enforcement.
Of course, this also means that our enemies can now put our soldiers on trial for breaking their laws during an armed conflict.
Kinda sounds like parts of the Geneva convention just went out the window. Doesn’t really matter, since western civilizations are the only societies bound by that agreement.
rockhauler on June 12, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Hey I have a solution! Execution on the spot.
Yes, WofGlory, McCain does want Gitmo closed down for the reasons cited by SCOTUS. And no, he is unwilling to hear opposing arguments. That’s his nature.
Zetterson on June 12, 2008 at 11:01 AM
When some future Gibbons writes “The Rise and Fall of the United States of America” this judgement will be cited in the chapter about the abandonment of the principle of self defense.
Annar on June 12, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I guess that means every surviving POW of the U.S. can now sue this country or something.
Yakko77 on June 12, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Why in the world would the US SC give Constitutional rights to foreign fighters? That’s like giving the Nazis rights during WWII! Our country is turning into a craphole
msipes on June 12, 2008 at 11:02 AM
We do indeed have the full opinion, and it’s available right here. I’ve been reading it.
paul006 on June 12, 2008 at 11:02 AM
And thanks to five members of the US supreme Court, this is exactly what they can do.
Again, congratulations for fighting on the behalf of terrorists who want you dead. They are so very pleased.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 11:02 AM
works for me…
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:03 AM
This, and the ANWR issue, is going to rile the base all over again.
funkychicken, put on your kevlar cause the injun’s are coming over the hill. I’ll try to keep the rifles loaded for ya.
……………..
Seriously folks, what did you think was going to happen? Does it matter that the ruling was today or that it came in February 09? The liberals don’t give a rats patudy about the rights of the terrorists, all they want is to bring on the war crime trials. This is the first step towards that end.
Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Take NO prisoners.
Johan Klaus on June 12, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Squid Shark,
I certainly hope not. There are certain criteria for POW status as well as protections associated with it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban meet none of those criteria and deserve none of those protections.
Mike Honcho on June 12, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I don’t know, that’s why I was asking. I know he wants it shut down, but he has never really given his reasons other than the, “we need to improve our standing with the world” boiler plate. Has he ever been as specific as to say that they are covered by our Contst?
Weight of Glory on June 12, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I can’t wait to listen to Mark Levin tonight! Look at the 4 dissenting votes… this shows how important it is to prevent Obama from getting the opportunity to choose these people. I hate McCain’s position on Gitmo, but I think his judicial appointments will be far more satisfying than BO’s.
Reaganite84 on June 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I kind of like this happening. These men aren’t exactly innocent, a trial isn’t going to kill anyone, and it nicely takes this whole issue off the table.
Dr. Manhattan on June 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Can anybody explain how the GITMO inmates’ nations of origin can keep refusing to take them back? I know we have tried to send them back “home” on several occasions, and have been rebuffed by their home countries.
I said this on another thread, but if we have to drop them over their “homes” from the air, well, I think it’s an option we should have.
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM
In his dissent (see pdf p. 110), Justice Scalia says the court’s decision is unlawful:
paul006 on June 12, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Take.no.prisoners.
Little Boomer on June 12, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Nice to know that the entire world is now subject to U.S. law. I guess that means the court has mandated that we put an end to suppression of freedoms in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea…
Beo on June 12, 2008 at 11:06 AM
1). It will cost taxpayer dollars
2). The SCOTUS just granted non-citizens with the rights of citizens and many will find the same fate as our dear OJ Simpson.
3). Our enemies who want to kill us will exploit the hell out of this.
4). American Constitutional rights and protections are now to be enjoyed by every living earthling.
To name a few of the basics.
Zetterson on June 12, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Once again we hamstring ourselves from protecting our citizens. Freedom of religion (except for Christians in the United States), freedom of speech (except for conservatives in the United States), freedom for the chief executive to protect the U.S. (except when force or interrogation may be used). I guess it’s a good thing that they executive branch will no longer have any power since everyone up for the job is a moron anyway. Absolutely unbelievable.
JeffinOrlando on June 12, 2008 at 11:07 AM
this country has become a joke and a laughingstock. we can’t drill for our own oil, and we treat terrorists and illegal aliens better than our own citizens.
I’m at the point where the fall of the US would be good for the people living here. its really sickening.
McObama’s picks for judges will just make it worse.
right4life on June 12, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Without parachutes!
txsurveyor on June 12, 2008 at 11:07 AM
This is a McCain decision. Do not think for a minute he will nominate judges to the court that disagree with him on issues of such importance. He is weak on national security.
He will never nominate a conservative judge.
Valiant on June 12, 2008 at 11:07 AM
If I was Bush Id immediately start sending the Gitmo people right to Washington DC and start civilian trials.
Let the entire circus go forward and when these terrorist turn the American Judical system into a mocery and make lawyers so dispised for standing up for our enemies it will have a profound effect.
The terrorists want a circus and give it to them let the American people see liberals stand up for terrorists rather than the American people.
The ACLU will be come so hated after standing next to Sheik Mohammed
William Amos on June 12, 2008 at 11:08 AM
So now any citizen from any country is protected by THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? I think it’s time to check the mental abilities of these 5 idiots. Does that also mean that they have to pay taxes to the united States?
Stick a fork in the (former) Unites States, we’re done!
jdsmith0021 on June 12, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Big, hairy deal - the next Prez would shut down Camp Delta regardless …
corona on June 12, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Yeah, well, the WSJ wrote an excellent editorial about oil today (instapundit linked it) and it puts McCain on notice that his energy policy may lose the election for him if he doesn’t modify it.
I agree with them…sadly. I hate the idea of Obama as my husband’s commander in chief, but if McCain refuses to see reality on domestic oil production, he’s probably going to lose. Dammit.
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I can think of five black robes that need to be charged with treason.
wccawa on June 12, 2008 at 11:08 AM
And move them to leavenworth. He has said nothing about giving enemny combattants US citizen status, and McCain did not argue in front of the supreme court.
Just because he didn’t say, and you don’t know, don’t suggest that he approves with this.
Jesus Christ, I’ve read 7 years worth of lying democrats putting worlds in the mouth of Bush and outright lying about him. And now - especially on sites like this - so many people here are doing the same thing to McCain. This is disgusting. Stop it.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 11:09 AM
FEWER PRISONERS !!! Don’t take them alive.
stenwin77 on June 12, 2008 at 11:09 AM
They’ll probably file a huge class action lawsuit seeking against the American government seeking sh*tloads of damages and walk away millionaires off the taxpayer.
This is utter, unspeakable craziness.
BigD on June 12, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I hate the idea too. We’re screwed 2008.
Valiant on June 12, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Interesting…if this is now law enforcement, then how does Posse Comitatus apply?
James on June 12, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Today, the attack on 9/11 is officially forgotten.
Sorry, 3000 innocent civilians.
Sorry, 4000 dead soldiers
All together now, bend over, put your head between your legs and ……….
fogw on June 12, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Oh, now. I’d give them parachutes…you know, slightly distressed parachutes, but it would have to look like we at least tried :-)
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Ok somebody help me out here.
Does this mean that the US Supreme court has just extended US CIVILIAN law to cover US MILITARY installations located on foreign soil?
I thought that UCMJ (Military code) covered all military installations, even those inside the US. That crimes committed by military personal, on military installations were adjudicated under UCMJ, military courts, on the installations. Does this mean that military personnel can now ask to have their cases adjudicated by CIVILIAN courts?
rockhauler on June 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
On one hand, I can see where the decision might lay: The major point of the Declaration was that all men were created equal, with inalienable rights, endowed by their creator. If this is the case, then the detainees, simply by being human, are granted the rights our American government was established to defend.
On the other hand, many of the detainees would just as soon burn the very document that SCOTUS has just extended to cover them. I wish that I could say it would be their just desserts if they are tried and convicted by our courts. Somewhere in my gut, however, I’m afraid they’re going to find a fancy lawyer and a loophole.
ScaryBiscuits on June 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
OBL must be rolling on the floor of his cave laughing after hearing about this one.
Socratease on June 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Here’s a thought, seeing as I haven’t seen the whole opinion, but one phrase in all the the stories thus far stands out: “right to challenge their detention” in civilian courts.
Could that simply be nothing more than that? Challenge the detention, offer evidence of some alibi, it-wasn’t-me-that-planted-the-bomb, something, and get an aye or nay on staying in club Gitmo, where the military hearings can then proceed?
JamesLee on June 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
If the Constitution applys to the world, the next (logical) step would be to have the whole world vote for POTUS, too.
Sir Napsalot on June 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I believe he will like this decision. (Of course, he’s a democrat). He has always been in favor of closing GITMO.
stenwin77 on June 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
* UPDATE: The 5-4 GITMO decision brings to the front, yet again, John McCain’s position on judges versus his own policies. McCain undoubtedly supports the 5-4 decision, yet the justices who voted against it, (from your link.)
No, this is NOT a McCain decision, this is Mark R. Levin OPINION.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Utter, suicidal insanity.
The Supreme Court 5 do what Al Qaeda could never have done:
unercut US security at the root.
Should have shot the s.o.b.’s when captured, via judgment with immediate military field tribunals as “spies, saboteurs and terrorists“, the way it was done in all previous wars.
Line ‘em up and mow them down.
And it will have to be done in the future to avoid this pseudo-legal lunacy.
SCOTUS treason.
profitsbeard on June 12, 2008 at 11:12 AM
We all can count on the MSM getting statements from McCain and Obama soon.
Since we are going to have to give these goons access to our courts I like the idea of William Amos. Dump them all in the Fed system TODAY and let the hollering begin.
Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 11:12 AM
THIS IS A GREAT DAY FOR THE LEFT AND A GREAT DAY FOR THE CALIPHATE!!
Thank you “liberals”!
Tony737 on June 12, 2008 at 11:13 AM
This is a very dangerous situation indeed.
If the first reading of this decision is correct, it appears that we have an imperial judiciary, and 5 appointed judges wield more power than all our elected representatives in congress and the executive branch combined.
These laws have been rewritten with the explicit purpose of making them able to withstand these sorts of challenges from the courts, but apparently the constitution and precedent don’t matter to libs, for whom history is so
last centuryyesterday.Buy Danish on June 12, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Stop lying about McCain. You are acting just like a democrat when you smear a politician that you disagree with.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Unfortunately, I have very little faith that a President McCain with a dem senate will make appointments to the SCOTUS that will be that much different than under President Obama. Our only hope is that the 4 dissenters here make it all the way through to Jan 2013. That way, hopefully, all we’ll get is liberal justices being traded in for liberal justices.
ncc770 on June 12, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Wm Amos and Dr. Manhattan have the silver lining.
Squid Shark, can you explain how/why other nations are able to refuse to accept custody of their own terrorist citizens when we ask to send them “home?”
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:14 AM
McCain is putting words out of his own mouth that are repulsive to conservatives.
McCain, Obama Overlap on Environment, Immigration, Guantanamo
Valiant on June 12, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Dude, relax. I wasn’t accusing McCain of anything, WHICH IS WHY I asked if anyone knew if McCain had argued along these lines, because I DIDNT KNOW. I then followed it up with a comment about the hope that McCain would explain what he thought about this. If I had already concluded that he agreed, why would I ask people here to give me any info they had, and why would I look for an explanation from McCain? So I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth.
Weight of Glory on June 12, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Brutal question:
So, if the Supremes think these people picked up on the battlefield as enemy-combatants are to be afforded US constitutional civil rights, will the new directive from the military be “WHEN CAPTIVES ARE INGAGED IN THE FIELD OF BATTLE, INTERROGATE AND EXTERMINATE ON SITE”?????? The Court has left the ROE for our military little choice.
Rovin on June 12, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Well, the supreme court (lower case) has finally started the destruction the liberals have long sought. They, by judicial legislation have overturned the legislature and executive and the US Army and Marines ROE. The rules now are:
1. Take no prisoners
2. If you do take prisoners, the Trial Lawers Association and ACLU must provide them representation in the war zone, immediately upon capture.
3. If no TLA or ACLU volunteers are forthcoming, the selective service may draft them for duty representing prisoners in the combat zones. To provide the best representation, the Highest paid ACLU or TLA members must be drafted first. The work, of course will be pro bono. Since they will be non-combatants, they will not be allowed to be armed while in the zone.
4. President Bush should release all Gitmo prisoners to their countries of origin (with suitable clandestine tracking devices that the truthers say we have). And we either let those countries kill them or we kill them on next contact. He should do this with an announcement of exactly why it was done and exactly who is responsible.
Indy Conservative, you are finally making sense. Love it!
Old Country Boy on June 12, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I don’t think America is done. The question does become, however, when does the idea of America become so divergent between its own people that it can’t be resolved through a normal political process?
I too hope this is being overblown. I suggest reading the novel by conservative author Orsen Scott Card “Empire” about this exact situation.
Hopefuly cooler and more rational minds will get this worked out, but I’m really starting to get worried for the first time in my life…
tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Wait til Barry’s President and puts Hillary on the court!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM
The unlawful-combatant designation and its circumscribed rights in Geneva intended to penalize those who hide among civilians for their attacks. Are we now to forego that?
The reality is that our enemies are already doing that and they don’t care. this is a war without quarter. the sooner we come to understand that thebetter off all civilization is.
unseen on June 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Levin is a ranting idiot. Sorry, but it’s just true.
McCain went on the floor of the senate to urge confirmation of Roberts and Alito based on their records and their qualifications. He scolded his colleagues who planned to vote against Alito in no uncertain terms.
Levin is discrediting himself with his MDS.
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM
It’s an awful ruling, but let’s don’t get carried away. The court doesn’t say that habeas applies everywhere. The court says it applies where our “Government has total military and civil control,” as it does at Gitmo.
Although Ed says we don’t yet have the opinion, we do have it. It’s right here. Read it for yourself. (See especially Justice Scalia’s dissent.)
paul006 on June 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM
There is an utter lack of awareness on the behalf of most people about how lucky we are right now and the many things that can go wrong: war, disease and environmental disaster. I suppose people could say I’m pessimistic, but look at human history with its disasters, plagues and wars. Under historical standards we would be at war with the muslims now. Perhaps we cam suppress it for a while as we suppressed the Capitalist-Marxist war from the 50’s to the 80’s. But the muslims aren’t going to suppress their war lust in the long run. It’s a religion of war lust. Nor is the pro-life/drill here, drill now combo not going to end in ecological catastrophe. And we’ll soon have genetic engineering advanced to the creation of new plagues.
We all prefer to live pleasant lives and these good lives remain a possibility. We just have to admit our radical good luck and realize many things can go wrong. Five Supreme Court Justices don’t appear to get we face a existential threat from Islam.
thuja on June 12, 2008 at 11:18 AM
This all points to a concerted effort to elect a real conservative in 2012.
Elect McCain, he won’t run for two terms, then dump him for a real honest conservative.
The problem is, there may be a couple of Justice appointments in the next couple of years.
right2bright on June 12, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Well, there’s a difference between those involved in 9/11 and those simply caught as part of the war against al Qaeda, isn’t there? Khalid Sheik Mohammed obviously needs to stand trial in the US for the terrorist acts he perpetrated, but I don’t see how this would apply to al Qaeda’s foot soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, who weren’t even privy to or involved with that attack.
It makes sense that people who committed a crime in the US should be held responsible for that crime in a US court.
But people caught during a war, fighting abroad, have no reason to be in a civilian US court. Unless they have been indicted for criminal charges in the US, which would apply to KSM, but perhaps not some of the others that are on trial.
Seixon on June 12, 2008 at 11:19 AM
What’s left from America?
Foreigners are controlling our economy because of our stupidity.
And because of our stupidity and cowardice, Muslim terrorists are allowed to have the same rights as any American citizen in our civilian courts.
America lost everything except its Military which is going down too gradually.
What’s left from America to be proud of?
We lost our pride.
We lost our sovereignty.
We lost our independence.
We lost our patriotism.
We lost our nation.
We lost everything.
We allowed it to happen, not our enemies.
As I said and will say many time, Americans are destroying America, not her enemies.
Indy Conservative on June 12, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Simple solution; since they were captured on the field of battle in civilian clothing, declare them spies and- per the Geneva convention- shoot the lot of them.
michaelo on June 12, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »