Obama’s penchant for opening his mouth before anybody in the White House engages their brains in all likelihood will not result in any serious domestic disasters.

General Motors, Chrysler, Porkulus?

“In this case, it’s a good idea, but it’s definitely a reversal, and one borne of inexperience and hubris.”

And Charlie Gibson thought Sarah Palin had hubris.

Welcome to reality, Barry O !

Now take a deep breath, and a bite of crow, and repeat:

“George W. Bush was right.”

He won’t say it. But we can always dream.

And can anyone find “Geneva Convention” in our Constitution?

In Pockyston, that’s pronounced “Co-von-syo de zhuh-NEV.” Come on, Barry, you’ve got to do more than “merci beaucoup”.

Wanted to keep it pithy...but you know me...ain't nothing pithy about me... ]

Military Commissions, at Guantanamo, are the sole legal means to determine if a detainee is rightfully detained or should be sent home.

The federal courts are not an appropriate venue, and a casual stroll through FindLaw or other legal library will point out USSC determinations that reinforce that armed foreign nationals engaged in hostile acts against US persons abroad are not entitled to access to US courts. The most notable case being Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950).

Under Geneva, and this is something that cannot be tossed aside with little thought, the detainees are not entitled to Geneva protections. None.

Under Geneva, trying military captees in civilian courts for acts committed on the battlefield is not permitted.

They may, however, be tried in civilian courts for acts committed against civilians after their capture. For example, if a POW escapes and robs and kills a civilian while trying to steal a car to further his escape, he may be tried by a civilian court, in that jurisdiction, upon his recapture, and even after the end of hostilities after that POW has been repatriated to his home country, provided that country has an extradition treaty with the US.

But, these detainees are not POW’s. This is a legal distinction that has become more muddied over the past few years, and now, more so, under this Administration.

It has been said, many times, that under Geneva, these detainees upon capture were entitled to just one thing…a choice of being given a cigarette and a blindfold before execution by the local military commander where they were captured. That is indeed a proper reading of Geneva.

That we offered better treatment of these detainees than they were entitled, for the sole reason of obtaining intelligence to thwart AQ and others from engaging in further acts of hostility towards us, in no way conveys POW status to them, nor abrogates our obligations under Geneva.

And this is very important, if any of these detainees were brought into the United States for so much as a minor medical procedure, a visit to the dentist, or to appear on a late night talk show, their status would change immediately and permanently.

They would upon arrival on US soil be entitled to every legal protection that any American citizen enjoys. Further, if they are brought to US soil, and afforded these same legal protections….they will be shown to have violated no US law. They will be shown to have violated no US law. It is worth repeating. Acts of aggression against US persons outside the Untied States by non-uniformed non-state bandits are not under the purview of the US federal courts. This was muddied in a major way by the Clinton Administrations insistence that bin Laden be arrested…and charged with civil crimes. And even when we had him within snatching distance, the Department of Justice, the then Attorney general, were hard pressed to find a legal fool-proof construct to enable us to grab him and drag him before a federal court. Ramsi Yousef’s arrest for conspiracy in the first WTC bombing set a false precedent. It still serves to muddy the waters.

Either we agree to handle ALL terrorism from outside the United States as a mere law enforcement matter, or we all agree to handle it for what it actually is…war.

Conflating the two over the past two decades has done no good at all to proper execution of anti-terrorism efforts.

The Euros, being a bit more hung up on Napoleonic-style law…as opposed to our Constitutional Law (and there is a difference) have a tough time trying to understand how on one weekend we can say a terrorist is a criminal and on the following weekend a terrorist is an enemy combatant. This is no small item. If we start swapping non-convicted criminals with our allies, what is to prevent them from doing the same with any other persons they deem to be criminals…like US tourists…or US service men and women whose only “crime” was to have been wearing a US uniform during a time when we had an unpopular President engaged in war elsewhere in the world?

Think of Spain’s recent attempt to try US officials in Spain for war crimes.

But back to the detainees and their coming to America to stand trial in a federal court, or even having a federal court set up shop in Guantanamo…a violation of two separate treaties, by the way, treaties the present Cuban government refuses to recognize.

The first result? Once they arrive in the US, habeus corpus attaches. They will be released from custody to prepare their case, or to merely stay here, or find their way back home. There are no laws to prevent them from entering our population once they arrive, and no laws to prevent their departure to another country. To incarcerate them pending trial is prejudicial to their case, a violation of their habeus corpus rights, and sets a very bad precedent that most Americans should fear…

Those jihadis who were arrested or captured on US soil…they are entitled to access to federal courts…for the sole reason that they were already here, on US soil.

Trying to place these in the same lot as the Gitmo detainees, or arguing that since we tried Padilla in US court, for example, why not just try all the rest in US courts ignores a very important legal boundary, one that has been upheld by the USSC for decades.

Not a big deal?

Well, if we can make sweeping wholesale changes in law, jurisprudence, and the rights of citizens and US persons by mere diktat of the Administration…what other Rights that we enjoy can not also be summarily disposed of?

Either we are a nation of laws…or we are not.

This is at the core of the fate of the Gitmo detainees.

Ignore it at your own peril.

Next question, please.

As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

Does this mean we will be free to kill the guys with guns who aren’t in uniform on a field of battle?

Obama is STILL at that age 16. He doesn’t want to be seen as the kid. The young one, with no sage wisdom, that he sees in more senior level persons, in Congress. So…he acts like the 16 year old, that knows it all, but knows so little, because he refuses to learn, and chooses to take the hard way, rather than seek the counsel of the more learned.

Just my opinion!

Is anyone in the RNC logging these flops? Gee, might be good to use in campaign adds or something. Too much to ask?

hip shot on May 15, 2009 at 10:30 AM

I wouldn’t make to much political hash with this kind of flip flop.

Perhaps putting a GOP elder statesman out there to talk about how easy it is to say childish things on the campaign trail but that national security is a whole different thing once one is on the inside. Hit the Dems on being unrealistic but not on the generic politician flip-flop thing.

No, you just weren’t listening you lousy dolts!

Glenn Jericho on May 15, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Forgot the “/sarc”
Krauthammer at his best!

The White House says that Obama always envisioned using a commission system, and that Oceania has always never been at war with Eastasia

Heh.

Harrumph!

Let’s rename Gitmo too. How about “Camp Friendship and Peace.” Problem solved.

Now proceed with the destruction of the free-market system.

petunia on May 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM

I prefer “Camp Butterflies and Lollipops“

This goes beyond mere tapdancing.

Obama is now breakdancing, with the spinning flipflop as his signature move.

Er… I… ahhh… ummm… didn’t mean what I said… ummm… errr. … ahhhh… because I didn’t know whet I meant when I …. ummm… ahhh….said what I did.

TOTUS is tittering in the backround.

I guess he should have actually spoken to other countries about taking them before he declared that closing Gitmo would be good for America’s image.

“In this case, it’s a good idea, but it’s definitely a reversal, and one borne of inexperience and hubris.”

Hey………..

………. why don’t we elect Barack Hussein Obama as the President of the United States?

What could go wrong………?

Nuance.