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 »
Sgt. John Winnick, if that is who you are talking about, was charged with aggravated assault against two other civilians and failing to adhere to the military’s rules of engagement. It had noting to do with the supreme court’s decision today.
I recall another case where the marine was accused of falsifying his testimony and/or planting a weapon on an unarmed man he shot. Again, this is about the rules on combat, not treating terrorists as US citizens.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Sorry, you’re wrong. While not “well,” it is alive.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Point is that Lawyers are already involved in combat ops, and this will just make it even worse.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/10/iraq/main3484452.shtml
and this is the sniper I was talking about…
Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM
We’re in this mess because “brilliant” humans now HAVE NO GOD but themselves. Democracy will never last, as we are slaves to selfishness, and that leads to selfish, short-sided votes for selfish candidates.
Hope you liked your 2008 so far, as it’s about to get very depressing.
leftnomore on June 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM
the nation will live to regret–should we be so fortunate as to be left alive to regret.
I wonder what The People could do to let the FIVE Supreme Court Justices know what we know they have done–MAIL CAMPAIGN have any effect on these jackasses? Picket their homes? Picket their vacation homes?
maverick muse on June 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I’m not a Constitutional lawyer but my guess is that any of our forces who take prisoners are likely to be required to travel back and forth between the theater and the US to testify in court. Assuming any of the prisoners they’ve captured are acquitted and released, our troops will likely be required to return back to the states and face a trial of their own for false imprisonment and violating our enemies Constitutional rights.
FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 4:10 PM
SCOTUS confers the rights of citizens onto enemy combatants captured on the bettlefield. The lawyers of the ACLU are now in charge of the global war on terror, because (let’s keep this real) it is the US that keeps the world safe, and the ACLU values the rights of enemy combatants over our soldiers and our citizens. Our sovereignty is in the hands of the ACLU. Bad day for us, really bad day for the rest of the world.
JustTruth101 on June 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
steal their porn.
JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Witless man
If you’re going to keep calling me a liar, it would seem like a good idea if at some point you could actually point to me …. lying.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Ah, of course, the same cure as is needed with bleeding hearts who welcome illegal aliens–leave the detainees in the communities of these FIVE jackass justices the entire time as the coming events transpire.
maverick muse on June 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Yep, it was specificly sited in the decision that the Military tribunals were not giving defendents the Right to gather evidence, and confront accusers….
Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Staff Sergeant Found Guilty Of Planting Evidence
Yeah. A US sniper would have been drawn up in a court martial as well back in in WW2 if they also planted evidence such as bomb wiring on a german man in civilian clothing.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Is the ACLU going to stop unauthorized listening-in on enemy conversations? Will captured laptops become illegally obtained evidence?
And just think: Hussein hasn’t appointed even one of these morons.
Akzed on June 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Keep digging.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Actualy? No, they would not have… because back then they understood that stuff happens in a war zone… and there would have been no need to plant that evidence in the first place.
Crap, we were CARPET bombing entire cities… no one cared about collateral damage if someone in a war zone got shot accidentaly…
Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Just to state the obvious…
This decision allows every single court in the U.S. to interpret what the Supremes meant. Then the appeals. Then the upholdings and the strike-downs.
This is the biggest decision by a court in my lifetime, and that began when Harry was in the WH.
This means the nation is saddled with everything from how ROEs are written to how, and if, the War Powers Act can be envoked. Good luck with the last part when we have to wait on Congress and a FICA court to decide if the incoming missle is a legal target.
Off to the kitchen to build up some survival fat.
Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 4:20 PM
JustTruth101
Today, Thursday June 12, 2008, a date which will live in infamy.
maverick muse on June 12, 2008 at 4:21 PM
It is striking to me that the Court simply “undid” what it took Congress 18 months to do, without replacing it with a viable alternative. The court usurped the PEOPLE’S VOICE through its elected representatives in Congress and replaced it with judicial rule, how is to be determined later.
From Robert’s dissent re classified info:
JustTruth101 on June 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Misdescribes is a legitimate word, so no [sic] is required.
spmat on June 12, 2008 at 4:23 PM
More on the practical results of what the court did today, still reading Robert’s dissent:
JustTruth101 on June 12, 2008 at 4:24 PM
at this point, i am completely demoralized, and i have no expectations of this country overcoming our enemy, ever.
we have too many leftists in this country to win.
blatantblue on June 12, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Wow…the end of Roberts dissent:
JustTruth101 on June 12, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Time to stop taking prisoners. Kill em all, let God sort them out.
Eff’in liberals.
Spectreman on June 12, 2008 at 4:30 PM
In a 5-4 decision, the SCOTUS has effectively made law the foreign policy position of treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. The Clintonian approach to terrorism is now the only approach.
Judicial legislation and execution all in one fell swoop.
spmat on June 12, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I won’t quote the whole thing, but Scalia’s dissent is required reading, it starts on page 109 of the pdf. Here’s just the opener…anyone who wants more can read it for themselves.
JustTruth101 on June 12, 2008 at 4:31 PM
*ahem*
I am not British, I am American. I just wasn’t born here ;-)
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Yep, and Judge Napolitano on Fox said this was a “great shining day” for the rule of law….
Rule of Judges and Lawyers maybe…but they struck down the law (as enacted by congress, and signed by the Pres…).
Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 4:32 PM
witless man
keep being witless.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Well, I can’t find a link to the text, or a copy of the video, but in the HBO program “band of brothers,” one of the men from the HBO series - book written by col Winters was interviewed. An office being interviewed recounted the story that just after the airdrop into normandy, an enlisted man from another company walked past a captured german prisoner who was unarmed, and headbutted him with his rifle, and knocked him unconscious, blood streaming from his head. The office told him that he would bring him up on charges because what he did was cruel and unnecessary. The man later dies in combat when they were attacking the artillery that was shelling the landing site.
Again, I searched for this, watched a few videos in an attempt to find this and link it. This is my recollection from watching the dvd set that had the interview.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM
What’s the matter? Cant think up a new lie to make up about McCain? That’s too bad.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM
This is from Scalia…y’all just have to read his entire dissent…it’s only a few pages and he is exceptionally gifted at writing so that both lawyers and non-lawyers have no problems following his logic.
JustTruth101 on June 12, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Scalia:
JustTruth101 on June 12, 2008 at 4:43 PM
He also cites early in his dissent the number of released detainees that have been recaptured on the battlefield, how the names of 200 unindicted co-conspirators given to a detainees attorney was in the hands of OBL himself within 2 weeks, specific murders and other atrocities committed by those released.
JustTruth101 on June 12, 2008 at 4:47 PM
THANK YOU, SCALIA…EXACTLY my point.
The branch that knows the LEAST about national security is now waddling into the midst.
And, as a caller into Hannity just eloquently articulated: “I feel, more than them granting the terrorists rights, that they’ve DENIED me mine, as the priviledge I have as a US citizen!”
This is prompting me to want to take a day off, go to the steps of SCOTUS, and burn a copy of the Bill of Rights…since they’ve completely dishonored my country, I think this would be an appropriate gesture.
Miss_Anthrope on June 12, 2008 at 4:51 PM
I am so frustrated that there isn’t more about this at the McCain report.
RushBaby on June 12, 2008 at 4:56 PM
this is the type of stuff that the “ron paul right”, do not understand or grasp: What real, applied Liberty actually is and what Constitutional Originalism actually is. They would no doubt side with scotus on this.
jp on June 12, 2008 at 5:00 PM
In thinking forward a bit here, how does this also relate to wire-tapping those darn “illegal combantants” who now have been given certain rights?
HarryStar on June 12, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Actualy, I don’t think they would, but you’ll have to ask them… but..
I think their position is that the Constitution is for Americans, in America… and we need to follow it.
Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Last comment as the oven is ready to ‘ding’….
A clue to just how important a decision this is and just how badly a monkey wrench has been thrown into the judicial system just look at ALL the major news outlets.
Not a peep other then the original posting. This court decision has every single branch of government reeling. Not even so much as a commentary so far (except on blogs).
The full impact of this ruling is way out there in left field and not a single player knows where the hell the ball is.
Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 5:04 PM
from Lew Rockwell’s blog, of course they are on the side of the Leftist here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
and
complete and utter fools and ignorant of Constitutional Law!!!
the Ron Paulians are ANTI-LIBERTY effectively.
jp on June 12, 2008 at 5:06 PM
follow my link above to Lew Rockwell…..
Rockwell and Company deserve a good smackdown and history lesson of this and Liberty.
jp on June 12, 2008 at 5:07 PM
I’m concerned that rabid dogs aren’t being treated with a concern for their rights and their feelings. They need petting and love also. These five SC justices should be required to spend an hour a day petting and saying soothing to rabid dogs. We’ll let the Gitmo lawyers take charge of humane care for rabid coons.
thuja on June 12, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Liberal Traitors on the Sup Court…go figure. We are Rome on the downside. The barbarians are inside the gates. Glad I won’t be around for the end. We don’t even have the stones to fight terrorists. Glad I am retirement eligible from the military soon. I am tired of being a sheep dog for these pussies!
jwp1964 on June 12, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Liberals want our country to fall, its just that simple. This was a treasonous act by the LEFTIST-FIVE of the Supreme Court.
Maxx on June 12, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I think we should try all of the unlawful enemy combatants at the SCOTUS so that they’ll be to busy to cause any more harm.
FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Sorry I meant wussies. I don’t want to be banned. Sorry AP.
jwp1964 on June 12, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Hip Hip Hooray!
Sens. McCain (R?-AZ), Graham (R?-SC), Obama (D-Il) and Clinton (D-NY) all have gotten their way today! All want to close Gitmo and put TERRORISTS into our judicial system. Fabulous! /sarc off
o/t - Windfall Eeeevil profit tax on Big Booze / sarc off again (sorta, since Exxon Mobil isn’t going to be available to fill up my SUV and my Jag any time soon)
Another “brilliant” decision by the “world testers” on the court.
“Give me
LibertyEurope’s approval; or give meDeathTerrorists!” - The crappy 5 on the court’s interpretation of Patrick Henry, no?Branch Rickey on June 12, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Anyone watching Geraldo getting his arse handed to him by Megyn Kelly right now? She isn’t taking any of his crap, I think he’s about to go nuclear (with spittle).
Sir Loin on June 12, 2008 at 5:22 PM
which includes 6 years in prison without a charge.
freevillage on June 12, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Heh, your interpretation of who will suffer, is different from what I meant. Limey knows. It’s the people who vote like lemmings/sheep/socialists/Marxists/the Pauls/the ones with the hands out, while giving up their wonderful freedoms/liberties.
You can also deal with “your” RINO congress and president. I’ll deal with all politicians on my own terms.
Limey, if that’s how you felt about the U.S., I was shocked, shocked I tell you, what I found in Australia. I always thought that they’d be more libertarian than Americans, but no, that wasn’t the case at all.
If this bastion goes down, it’s over.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Conservative Voice on June 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM
SIGN ME UP FOR THAT PETITION!!!!!!!!!!
Branch Rickey on June 12, 2008 at 5:28 PM
simple solution.
Just shoot and don’t take any prisoners. then you don’t have to worry about it. do what you do on the battle field.
ross
kara26 on June 12, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Just so I am clear: in order to disprove my statement that the Constitution did not setup the Supreme Court as its interpreter & that the Court declared that on its own, you reference the exact COURT ruling/decision that proves it?
Or was I mistaken that you were not trying to argue my point, but instead providing my comment with back up?
That decision, like so many others through the years, has only proven how the Supreme Court has become a cancer to the Constitution and the country. It has grown far beyond the role it was intended to have, and is in dire need of chemo treatment / removal.
Voidseeker on June 12, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Been working to put people into bad home loans all day/sarc…….and I just heard about this. Have read any comments but I sure you all have said what I’m thinking….what’s the frakkin point of taking prisoners? These aren’t your standard gang bangers here. WTF is going on here?!??!?!!?!? Time to load up at the gun shop.
VikingGoneWild on June 12, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Bear witness to the start of the next American Revolution.
Viper1 on June 12, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Anyone watching Geraldo getting his arse handed to him by Megyn Kelly right now? She isn’t taking any of his crap, I think he’s about to go nuclear (with spittle).
Sir Loin on June 12, 2008 at 5:22 PM
rockhauler on June 12, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Expect all of the gitmo scum to get lawyers who file for release in the 9th circuit.
peacenprosperity on June 12, 2008 at 5:52 PM
We need a presidential candidate that speaks like this about all subjects. It’s ashame newt keeps trying to make nice with the demofacists.
peacenprosperity on June 12, 2008 at 5:53 PM
I noticed that Roberts states at the end:
Scalia says only:
There’s nothing respectful about his dissent.
INC on June 12, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Not me, but if it lives up to your sales pitch I’d like to.
FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 5:57 PM
I meant that the actions, or sometimes inactions, of the legislative and executive branches can lead to the usurpation of power by the judiciary. It is a power grab that is sanctioned in some respects by weaknesses in the other branches.
I am not arguing against your point.
JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 5:57 PM
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm
Read a bit… and I seem to remember when Lincoln did this, he asked “and how many Regiments does the Chief Justice have?”
Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 6:20 PM
What is an American to do?? Just what?? We are watching a minority of liberals,, no, traitors, TRAITORS!, completely destroy this America an edict at a time! Oh,, traitors too harsh??
I think not! What else should we call these people?? There is no better name!! How many are there?? Certainly 5 on this court! How many of the 535 in congress?? About half??
5 people on this court have just made an attempt to seize power from the President to conduct wars against enemies of this nation! This attempt at a coup by 5 people wearing robes on the Supreme Court has given our enemies, people who are wanting to destroy this nation, they have just given our enemies safe harbor!!
Yes! This is an attempted coup by the 5 members of the court!
I say attempted because I believe the President has the authority and ability to say “Screw the court!”
But will he??
Certainly the court must also obey the constitution?? Is the court above law??? Is it?? Can the Supreme Court say blond haired children are unconstitutional??? is there no ruling that this court cannot get away with?? If this court can make any edict it wants, then we are no longer under the rule of law nor do we have a Republic nor a Democracy.
I do not know what form of government that would be called, but it certainly would not be what we have had. We are giving ourselves over to the mercy of judges!
Government of the judges, by the judges and for the judges!
Black robes included!
JellyToast on June 12, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Get ready to transfer more taxpayer dollars to the legal industry…Thanks to liberal Clinton appointees. These trials will cost tens of millions.
Nozzle on June 12, 2008 at 6:31 PM
atleast probably, add a few “republicans” like ron paul and probably walter jones and gilcrist but he just got beat.
jp on June 12, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Eh, the Israelis are about to get awfully busy; their rendition teams are sweeping out new cells as we speak.
Our soldiers and black-ops guys are going to get a new directive: no one gets captured by us anymore, they are to put under the jurisdiction of nations who aren’t stupid enough to do what our SCOTUS just did.
How does that feel, you idiotic lefties? Where do you think your terrorist buddies are going to get better treatment, Gitmo or an Egyptian military prison? You fools.
Bishop on June 12, 2008 at 6:41 PM
As a student of history, having considered the fall of all the great societies before us, I have been thinking this for a long time. Our forefathers knew this was a risk and warned us in the federalist papers, saying that as a free people, we could only be destroyed from within, and that when the people treat themselves to the largess of government (when the masses want to put their hand in the treasury) it’s one step away from being over. We are witnessing the end of a great civilization. This election will decide whether we go the way of Europe, or whether we are still AMERICANS.
JustTruth101 on June 12, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Military exception apply in these cases I would imagine, I envision alot of videoconference testimony, though.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Judicial dictatorship?
FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 6:49 PM
We never were Rome, friend. We will not be remembered in the way Rome was. We never made the transition to Empire, therefore we are destined to obscurity.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 6:49 PM
My comment isn’t showing.
fossten on June 12, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Continued lies.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Speaking of the Constitution, I noticed nobody’s all that upset about the BATFE’s gestapo tactics.
fossten on June 12, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Well put Limerick. As always.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Levin’s calling it a judicial oligarchy.
FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM
I’m so late to this party, but all I have to say is:
Good Lord, this is horrifying.
SouthernDem on June 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Here’s the Court’s reasoning:
And why didn’t the English Courts issue any writs of habeas corpus? The Court guesses:
They’re just making up sh*t as they go along.
jaime on June 12, 2008 at 7:02 PM
One of the first things I learned about Con Law is that if you have reached the Magna Carta you have gone too far. This is getting pretty close.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Horrible for the country and, on a selfish note, the my workload as a JAG when I graduate, they are definitely not going to let me slink off into the reserves now. We are going to be doing appeals till 2050, if we make it that long.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Squid:
Closing GTMO and bringing the terrorists to the US would confer constitutional rights. Surely you know that Due Process applies to anyone within the j/d of a US court. And how does Eisentrager (which also says that aliens in US j/ds get Due Process) not apply? Non-resident aliens being held on foreign soil do not have constitutional rights.
To say that McCain wants to close GTMO, bring the terrorists to the US, but not give them constitutional rights is either ignorant or deceitful.
Since when have we kept people locked up indefinitely without charging them? Since we’ve been having wars.
The Geneva Conventions are pretty clear on illegal alien combatants: they don’t get the protections that legal ones do. To extend those protections to IECs undermines the reason for having the Conventions, that reason being to encourage them to wear uniforms and refrain from attacking civilians, among other things.
misterpeasea on June 12, 2008 at 7:08 PM
I have a feeling it will take years before this all shakes out through the courts and we discover what it all means. In regard to video conferencing, I doubt that the terrorists lawyers will accept that. They’ll want direct access to the witnesses.
I’m not sure yet if it’s a valid concern, but I fear for the families of our troops that will find themselves in the position of testifying against AQ or any other terrorist group that has operatives here in the US.
FloatingRock on June 12, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Yeah, I think it’s crossed the line. Is Gitmo more like India in the 1900’s or is it more like Hanover in the 1700’s? Let me see… no real record… let’s just make up some sh*t to get the result we want.
jaime on June 12, 2008 at 7:12 PM
We need a candidate who is ready and willing to fight the courts, among all the other things.
We are suppose to have three equal branches of government.
Bush has too often just laid down.
Marxist liberalism needs fought on all fronts. The people need educated on the basics of what our system of government is about.
Most people don’t have a clue. But, I still believe when people are educated and reminded of the power they actually have, it makes a difference.
JellyToast on June 12, 2008 at 7:22 PM
When you pray, don’t forget to pray for your country. We are in very serious trouble.
Maxx on June 12, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Let the five justices be sent to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan so they can “enjoy” the wonders of those “cultures”. They certainly do not deserve the rights and freedoms that so many Americans have fought and died for. The blood of our fighting men and women is now on their hands. Had these five traitors been on the court after WWII, would they have extended the rights of our constitution to the architects of the holocaust?
djtnt on June 12, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Absolutely stunning; giving protections afforded under our Constitution to persons who are NOT Americans and NOT on U.S. soil. The five morons who issued the majority opinion haven’t a clue as to what it means to be an American(if that sounds harsh, then tough). Scalia was right on the money. Every single combatant against the U.S. has now been granted carte blanche to kill U.S. citizens and resort to U.S. courts for their protection. I have been a licensed attorney for 16 years and have never been so ashamed of my profession.
second digit on June 12, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Jeebus! I can’t believe that somebody is going to try to blame Ron Paul for this. I think it’s safe to say that there are no Ronulans on the Supreme Court.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Just what the country needs, another lefty JAG lawyer. Maybe we can send JAG into battle with Al Queda?
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Did we “charge” the German and Japanese POW’s in WWII, or did we simply keep them until the war ended?
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Frankly, the residents of GTMO need to be hauled out of their comfy living quarters and dumped quite ceremoniously on the doorstep of Anthony Kennedy. I volunteer to serve as honor guard for this prosession. Let Kennedy deal with them then.
second digit on June 12, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Another thought popped into mind: D.C. v. Heller. If Kennedy and the “four morons of the apocalypse” are willing to grant Habeas rights to persons not even in this country and not even U.S. citizens, then they dang sure better find broad 2nd Amendment rights to Heller (and all of us by extension). That would piss me off royally if they granted these GTMO yahoos more rights than they granted me. (Either way: Cold Dead Hands).
second digit on June 12, 2008 at 8:44 PM
When you pray, don’t forget to pray for your country. We are in very serious trouble.
Maxx on June 12, 2008 at 7:35 PM
You couldn’t be more correct Maxx…
I just got home from work; don’t have time to read through this entire thread. I’m pissed; I’m confused; I’m having a difficult time with this incomprehensible decision. We are in serious trouble as a nation. No denying that following this decision handed down by our highest ranking court.
What this decision means to me; no longer can those protecting our nation capture enemy combatants; they must be killed. Members of the Supreme Court care more about attacking President Bush and scoring points for the political party of their choice, than they do for their country. The five Judges that are to blame for this decision, must be dealt with. These Judges have sold out their country to the highest bidder. Hundreds of Congressmen have sold out their country to the highest bidder. The Liberal media has sold out our country for years now, and to further the pain, they throw it in our face while telling us that we are the problem and are simply too stupid to comprehend where these elitist are coming from.
I have no answers; I only have disgust and disappointment. Our education system is stuffed full of Liberal activist teachers and professors, preaching to our children that America is evil, and the American people are selfish. We have activist Liberal Judges creating law from the bench, while altering our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We have China tapping into the computers of our Congressmen. We have Mr. Soros buying complete power over all of us and effecting our every day lives, all under the eyes of our government. We have a media that willingly reports anything bad coming out of Iraq (including manufacturing phony stories), while refusing to report anything good coming out of Iraq. We have a government that is the cause for our energy problems, and if you listen closely to these rats, they don’t plan on doing anything about the energy crisis anytime soon.
We are in trouble as a nation!
Keemo on June 12, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Easy fix. Capture less prisoners on the field of battle.
Hog Wild on June 12, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Go, Grahamnesty, go.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vowed Thursday to do everything in his power to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying that “if necessary,” he would push for a constitutional amendment to modify the decision.
Graham blasted the decision as “irresponsible and outrageous,” echoing the sentiments of many congressional Republicans and President Bush.
Earlier in the day, the court ruled 5-4 that suspected terrorists held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in federal court.
Graham cautioned that it he was still digesting the decision, but said he was “looking at every way I can to modify this position,” including fighting to change the statute, when talking to reporters Thursday afternoon.
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Were the 19 9/11 hijackers not “invading” the US to attack it?
If the SCOTUS 5 can “decide” magically that this was not an “invasion” (the “legal” basis for this ruling, which, in effect, declares that we are NOT at war, and that no one attacked us by entering the country- “invading” it- and striking the Pentagon… the GODDAMNED PENTAGON!), what other wonders do their have up the black sleeves?
Impeach the SCOTUS 5 by declaring them mentally unfit to serve.
They have clearly lost complete contact with reality.
profitsbeard on June 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM
That’s quite a surprise.
Somebody must have sprinkled some testosterone on his pablum this morning.
LegendHasIt on June 12, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Sigh. Wouldn’t your amazing debate skill be better used elsewhere, like Jr. High.
Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Heh. Peter O’Toole comes to mind - “No Prisoners!“
jaime on June 12, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »