Supreme Court opens up Gitmo lawsuit floodgates; Scalia: “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
Chief Justice John Roberts says the rule of law and the American people have lost out–and with this ruling, we “lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”
The bottom line via SCOTUS blog:
In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.
The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” individuals during the war on terrorism, and hold them at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered first by the District judges.
The Court also declared that detainees do not have to go through the special civilian court review process that Congress created in 2005, since that is not an adequate substitute for habeas rights. The Court refused to interpret the Detainee Treatment Act — as the Bush Administration had suggested — to include enough legal protection to make it an adequate replacement for habeas. Congress, it concluded, unconstitutionally suspended the writ in enacting that Act.
I’m reminded of what one DHS source pointed out to me when the high court ruled in favor of habeas corpus rights four years ago: “Hmm, now that the Gitmo detainees are entitled to habeas challenges and hearings by American courts and American judges, I wonder how long before they and their lawyers claim that they are entitled to asylum hearings as well?”
Won’t be long now!
Howard Bashman has links to the ruling and oral argument transcript. Justice Scalia’s dissent says it all:
Both the Chief Justice and Justice Antonin Scalia issued dissenting opinions, and all four dissenters joined in both dissents. In his dissent, Justice Scalia writes, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Justice Scalia’s 25-page dissenting opinion concludes, “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
Jonathan Adler: “As I (super-quickly) skim Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, it appears to hold that Guantanamo detainees have habeas rights, that these rights can only be denied through a valid suspension of habeas rights (under the Suspension Clause of the Constitution), that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment Act were not an adequate substitute for habeas, and therefore Section 7 of the Military Commission Act is an unconstitutional suspension of the detainees’ habeas rights. I’m sure I (and others) will have more to say about this case in subsequent posts.”
While I am still reviewing the 5-4 decision written by Anthony Kennedy, apparently giving GITMO detainees access to our civilian courts, at the outset I am left to wonder whether all POWs will now have access to our civilian courts? After all, you would think lawful enemy combatants have a better claim in this regard than unlawful enemy combatants. And if POWs have access to our civilian courts, how do our courts plan to handle the thousands, if not tens of thousands of cases, that will be brought to them in future conflicts?
It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at victory. So complete is the Court’s disregard for the Constitution and even its own precedent now that anything is possible. And what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for “the Bush administration.” Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.
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, and argued strenuously against it, are of the kind McCain claims to want on the bench. We have seen the same issue arise respecting campaign finance. This is not to say that McCain won’t nominate originalists to the bench. But if he does, he will be nominating to the Court individuals who are better adherents to the Constitution than he is.
I’m skimming through the ruling, too. Here’s the key passage of the majority’s ruling, pp. 41-42:
We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us,
Congress must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause. Cf. Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 564 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (“[I]ndefinite imprisonment on reasonable suspicion is not an available option of treatment for those accused of aiding the enemy, absent a suspension of the writ”). This Court may not impose a de facto suspension by abstaining from these controversies.See Hamdan, 548 U. S., at 585, n. 16 (“[A]bstention is not appropriate in cases . . . in which the legal challenge ‘turn[s] on the status of the persons as to whom the military
asserted its power’ ” (quoting Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 759 (1975))). The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of the writ; and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not argued that it is. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention.
Here’s the conclusion of Chief Justice John Robert’s dissent, pp. 27-28.
So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases,followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit— where they could have started had they invoked the DTA
procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to “determine— through democratic means—how best” to balance the security of the American people with the detainees’ liberty
interests, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557, 636 (2006) (BREYER, J., concurring), has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is
hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers,
who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.I respectfully dissent.
***
Related: Who’s funding the Gitmo lawyers?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- JammieWearingFool
- SCOTUS sides with Gitmo Detainees « Azman Family Politics
- SCOTUS: Foreign Unlawful Combatant Terrorists Protected by US Constitution | PAWaterCooler.com
- Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » “The Nation Will Live To Regret What The Court Has Done Today.”
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » Supreme Court Rules For Terrorists in one of the Darkest moments in U.S. History
- A brief note on the Supreme Court habeas corpus cases [Karl]
- Rhymes With Right
- The Thomas Chronicles » Supreme Court Rules on Gitmo
- Outside The Beltway | OTB
- SCOTUS Says that You and the Islamists are All the Same to the Constitution | The Sundries Shack
- baldilocks
- Top U.S. court says terrorism detainees have rights * | Jack’s Newswatch
- Supreme Court Creates Killing : Stop The ACLU
- The USSC has lost it’s collective mind | BitsBlog
- Supreme Court Issues Gitmo Ruling Favorable to Lawsuits | OpenMarket.org
- Supreme Court Issues Gitmo Ruling Favorable to Lawsuits | OpenMarket.org
- SCOTUS: You’d better go ahead and kill them, then. » Pursuing Holiness
- The Radio Patriot
- Gitmo Detainees Get Their Day in Court « Axis of Right
- Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » Media Bias Roundup - 06/12/08
- Democrat=Socialist
- The other side of the Supreme Court ruling « ReasonableCitizen
- Six Meat Buffet » Boon for Humvee Chasers
- Supreme Court Ruling on Illegal Enemy Combatants; US Will Live (or Die) to Regret « God Drinks Beer
- Blame Congress, Not The Judges « Tai-Chi Policy
- The Patriot Room
- June, 2008 Archive « Right Minded Online
- Guantnamo Detainee New Al Qaedas Chief - Page 2 - YardLimits.com
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Ally McBeal approach, Gitmo
Yourish.com
» Tom Friedman urges Bush policy on Israel
NewsBusters.org
» Fox the Only Cable Newser to Air Pelosi's House Speech LiveBetsys Page
» The fall of the Berlin WallCommentary
» ConcernedCommentary
» Who Will Have the Nerve?Commentary
» Flotsam and Jetsam
Obama Girl Moby
He is a RINO. He will probably make the conservative call as POTUS about 50% of the time.
Obama will make the conservative call as POTUS about 0% of the time.
But you get your panties in a bunch about McCain.
Maybe because Obama’s exotic looks and deep voice send tingles up your thighs?
All I know is what we admit we do to Gitmo detainees is pretty inhuman if you don’t even know they’re guilty.
(Remember that after Bush and the “liberal” press made a big hubbub about the Newsweek article about the Koran being flushed down the toilet, the Pentagon actually admitted it was true.)
Habeas Corpus was suspended in 2006 I don’t know how they’re finding that the detainees are entitled to it. It was the very reason it was suspended
How does Habeas Corpus apply to foreigners captured on the battlefield, Einstein?
And, for once, I’d love to hear a Leftist call the terorists “evil”. How come they’re not “evil doer warriors”, huh? How come you don’t ask why the terrorists don’t know how to abide by the rule of law? You Lefists have made this country your enemy, and this ruling only emphasizes that…
Rusty opined:
What, do you think these were shopkeepers and tradesmen and innocent bystanders just watching what was going on and somehow they got swept up and captured?
“…the opportunity they’ve deserved…” Yeah they want the opportunity to kill us without mercy. We should have killed them on the battlefield, that’s what should happen in a war.
Hope we can, but they will do their best to hang on so the Obamessiah can replace them with more of the same. Many justices would just as soon die on the court as to retire vountarily anyhow.
Not that we can actually trust McCain to nominate and have a conservative placed on SCOTUS if he is president.
No all you know is what the NY Times tells you is the truth. That doesnt make it the truth. Again your assume these events are 100% true without facts
And show me the Constitutional law or any law that makes it illegal rto flush korans or how that is a major violation of rights ?
Hey Rusty, why don’t you worry about the lives the Islamic radicals ruin, huh? Why does your heart not bleed for American citizens who have been targeted and murdered by these thugs?
It happens once a year every year. Too bad people care more about TV.
The protection under the laws of the land applies to its citizens (which is why there are illegal aliens who violate the laws every day they are here). Of course, liberals would love to get rid of every trace of Christianity (and thereby Christians) but extend rights to terrorists, rights that do not exist. So, stick your habeas corpus.
How do you people live with yourselves?
Once they go to court, if trials are ordered, how the heck will the US come up with witnesses? Take people who’ve been out of the service, subpoena them to wherever the trial is and pay their airfare? And hope their memories from 2001 and 2002 are good?
This means a lot of terrorists getting free airline tickets back to Saudi or wherever, and a second chance to die as shaheeds for the jihad, and dead American troops and civilians, along with dead foreign civilians.
Brian 72..You’re posts are RIGHT ON!!!
After my first post-I got started on work-ups for a sculpture so- didn’t read your excellent takes on this issue.
As much as it will get the Democrats in a frenzy, I think Bush needs to suspend habeus NOW.
My problem with this decision and others like it is that it applies criminal statutes to enemies during war. Terrorists don’t commit crimes they commit acts of war. Many times they haven’t even committed an act of war yet, but are still plotting to. In my opinion, we simply cannot treat enemy combatants with criminal statutes during times of war. Here is how I viewed it.
Scalia is absolutely right, this ruling is horrendous!
American lives are now at even greater risk, because this idiotic ruling will guarantee terrorists the rights our forefathers fought and died for, that our grandfathers and uncles went through two world wars to protect, that our soldiers in Iraq, and poised to enter Iran, are trying to extend to others – and for what?! Just so a leftist Judge Hardy wannabes can sit on the High Court and pass them out like party favors?! It ain’t right…it just ain’t.
Judge Roberts has the insight to know what this ruling portends.
I mean, what are we a nation or an empire? Is our constitution for us, or does it extend to every man, woman and child on the face of the earth?! Does it trump the other constitutions of the world, e.g., the Magna Charta, the French Republic, etc.?
I’ll say one thing, if I have to share my rights with the reprobates, scum, and dogs of the earth, a.k.a., terrorists, then I’ll be ding-danged if they aren’t gonna start paying their share of my taxes!
Right on, bro!
If our soldiers can fight for our liberties overseas I surely can fight for our liberties here. This is a setback but gives the right ammo to paint the left as the terrorist loving group they are.
This is the logical conclusion to the Union winning the Civil War. Northern liberals giving away the country.
I hate to say it, but I think we’re going to have to go back to square one on this. It’s time to drop these dregs back in their home countries before they can apply for asylum and then rewrite how and where we deal with the next grroup.
Some of them, absolutely. It’s not like the US hasn’t messed up this sort of thing before (check out the link in comment #90).
Bad countries lock people up without reason or recourse. Good countries don’t, even in the most extreme of circumstances.
I’m glad the Supreme Court remembered what side of that coin we’re on.
hey Rusty …
You gonna go to Gitmo and interview all of them and decide which ones are lying through their teeth to you to get you to think they are just innocent bystanders and should be released …
And ending the greatest human rights abuse in American history. Those anti-slavery Union jerks!
Nope, that’s for the courts to decide, thank goodness.
Yeah…we sure saw which side the liberal majority is on, didn’t we? Too bad its the same as our enemy…
That’s not a bad idea, William.
I think most of us ultimately are moved in our political sentiments not by dry data but by vivid images and incidents.
The circus of the Chicago 7/8 Trial still makes me bristle deep in my conservative soul all these years later. Abbey Hoffman and all they rest along with their radical, America-hating attorney William Kunstler. This is the sort of moment that has fired and sustained my anger at the leftist mob for all these years. (And it no doubt help bring on the trouncing of George McGovern in 1972.)
Yea, it is useful to let these people show their asses from time to time. (I hope Michael Moore will sit in the presidential box at ~every~ Democrat convention.) I’d enjoy watching these Islamist scum poke their thumbs in the American eye for the value it would have in waking up the sheeple.
I dont think evrey capture person is guilty and those that have been swept up illegal have been let go.
You on the other hand consider them all innocent no matter who it is and what they were caught doing. ITs true they deserve some kind of trial but it is also true they dont deserve every right we have.
OK, OK, I gotta say it – this is the supreme court i knew.
Well folks if you don’t have guns now, you better get them, practice with them, and learn how to get around the judiciary if you have to shoot an attacker (learn when and when not to use lethal force)….
“Good countries” seldom live free for very long.
New Rules Of Engagement!
Take no prisoner KILL THEM ALL!
People let go from gitmo have already killed more americans.
I suppose what’s next is that American soldiers will have to read the enemy his rights before they shoots him?
RE: #98
ED, unfortunately a lot of the women who like Obama like him because of this motivation…they think that voting for class president (or was it class stud)=voting for POTUS
LGM, it’s the job of the government to run the courts, and you know that.
Limited government doesn’t mean NO government.
It is so sad how an excellent President can get can weak and try to compromise with liberals, as did President Reagan when he appointed Anthony Kennedy.
This really negates a lot of his legacy in my opinion–as does Souter with President Bush I. Here we have Reagan’s judge undoing his entire philosophy and conservative principles. That was a monumentally bad decision on President Reagan’s part to nominate Kennedy. . .and he did it to appease Dems.
Thank God that President Bush appointed Roberts and Alito. We need to give President Bush credit for that.
We also need to hold accountable in their historic legacy those who appointed these judges. Reagan did not have to choose Kennedy, and yet he did. He should have researched him far more thoroughly.
I see it mentioned here ‘it’s like 9/11 never happened’…Remember: on Sept. 11, 2001, I cried
“It’s like
Sept.5-6, 1972, Munich never happened
Dec. 21, 1988, Lockerbie never happened
Feb. 26, 1993 World Trade Center never happened…!!!!”
Hey libs, you want more Rendition programs? No? Well too bad, you just got ‘em in spades. Fine. No more Gitmo. Now when interrogating and extracting information has been completed, instead of giving them a Koran and better meals than our kids see in our public schools, we’ll just take said terrorist, trot them out to a courtyard or pit and put a bullet in their head.
At least that’s what we should do. IF we had any balls.
Reagan put up Bork and Fat Teddy and his ilk went nuts. That forced reagan to back down and we got stuck with Kennedy.
Id like to kick who ever in that Admin recomended Kennedy. I believe it was Baker.
Brian72, thanks for being so detailed in the explanations here. It’s what everyone needs to know and what all on the left are denying…including amongst the Republicans. No one ever believed me when I told them that the Geneva Conventions was part of my Army basic training in 1972.
No. I’d be willing to bet that most people at Gitmo are guilty of the things they’re accused of. But there has to be a safety net for those who were captured and have done nothing wrong other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That’s ridiculous. We’ve done just fine for 225 years. 9/11 killed 3,000 people. 3,000 people does not make or break a democracy.
Showing a fundamental disdain for human rights does.
This ruling is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and just about every law of war. Enemy combatants should not be awarded rights under our constitution, because they hide among the civilians, and use them as human shields. The enemy combatants don’t wear any uniform; they don’t follow the laws of war, and should not be afforded rights afforded to Men and Women in uniform. They are criminal cowards.
And Jesus answered and said to them….
“You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.
For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.
But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.
Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.
Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.
But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” Matt 24:7-14
Lawlessness will abound…I told you: get ready to say good-bye to this great nation forever. Especially if (or when..) our next President abandons Israel. Then God will abandon the United States of America. You can almost see Him beginning to turn His back on us now…
God have mercy.
Rusty …
You seem to be assuming that those still held in Gitmo have not been investigated and interviewed and their stories checked out … well they have been … and it was conducted in their many native languages to ensure there was no misunderstanding of what was said …
We have released hundreds of these detained people back to their own governments … including many who WERE NOT IRAQIs that were captured on the battlefield …
We released them despite the doubts of their stories about why they were in those locations in a country other than their own … only to have many of them be recaptured on another battlefield or blow themselves up the next time they got a chance to play martyr …
Want to see a real gripe about illegal detention? … how about the American tourist being held in Mexico right now because he was a witness to a murder … no charges against him … but they refuse to let him return to the US because they are afraid he won’t come back to testify … so he is in jail there … where’s the outrage against that detention …
If there was a declared war against terror rather than legislative approval, this would not have happened. Also, if these trials had occurred and the sentences completed a few years ago, this would not have happened. In the future, kill the enemy on the battlefield – take no prisoners.
You yourself admit that those accused have been set free. What further garauntees do you need ? You say some are guilty yet you want to turn our courts into circuses for what benefit ? That all doubt be removed of Sheik Khalid’s guilt ? Do you have any doubt ?
IS there any real benefit to this ruling ? I see none.
Bummer, man…you are just so stuck back in that old citizens/nations/borders paradigm. That kind of thinking is just sooo yesterday.
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
(Great post, Brian. I also really dug that drippingly sarcastic shot you took at McCain at the end, pretending to forget yourself and imagine that he would know how to make political use of this situation.)
Yeah, if the ACLU gets its way. And the soldiers will carry just one bullet, to be carried in the upper left shirt pocket and only loaded with the express permission of a lawyer from JAG.
If any of the detainees are innocent, then why were they in a place-position that got them apprehended into Gitmo in the first place?
What’s more, if per chance there ever really were any innocents inducted into Gitmo – which I do not believe happened – rest assured they will not exit “innocent.”
The best thing to do is let the military handle it.
What idiocy!!
Does this ruling help mama-Obama’s children?
#19 – you state the current situation eloquently. May I add that no one seems to be preserving, protecting, or defending the Constitution of the United States; or protecting our sovereignty and borders; or for that matter, representing our citizens.
#24 – I agree with all you write. But might I add…let’s just behead those non-uniformed scumbag spies and saboteurs who are not killed on the battlefield, and invite Al-Jazeera to cover the proceedings.
You are, of course, talking about the terrorists. Oh, wait. I just read your posts. You are anti-american, got it.
I can hardly read this article through my own tears and I think if I were to sigh anymore than I have I will start to hyperventilate. If John McCain expects to win my vote then he needs to have a serious change of heart from the democrat he is to a true conservative. If he were out there, right now, decrying how terrible an injustice this was and that enemies of our counry are in no way entitled to half of what we do for them, let alone this new boon of access to our courts, he’d be the garunteed front runner in this election. Instead, a mealy-mouthed wishy-washy response that attempts to show dissatifaction with the courts, while still attempting to placate what he sees as his real base, the liberal media.
We need to give a lot more credit to talk radio and the blogospere without which we would no doubt have had Justices Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales.
I assume that everyone upset with today’s ruling will be sticking to their principles, their values, and their beliefs, and will not be voting for John McCain. Right?
Individuals like Rusty take the opposite point of view on everything until something actually happens to them. It is amazing how environmentalists will defend nature, – until they are driven nuts by gophers, deer and rabbits. It is amazing how criminals are misunderstood victims of the system and the police are so bad, – until the criminal kills a family member or neighbor. And, it is amazing how far some will go to to defend terrorism against the USA, – until an entire city goes up in nuclear flames. The problem with this decision is that it will eventually lead to less individual freedom in a crisis – and we will go back to WW-II and incarcerate as necessary.
I have been to both the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and all I can say is that the Supreme Court decision is not only a disaster for the country but a moment of shame for us all.
My G-d.
I can’t believe that you do not understand that this should make this country, and realize that’s where the shame is.
#144:
That is ridiculously bad logic.
#136:
You could show a fundamental understanding of our government. Just an fyi.
Ahh, yes, you’re so incensed over our “torturing” ways that you can’t even remember the name of your poster child example, lol.
Of course we’re torturing prisoners left and right in Gitmo. It’s impossible not to, because, according to ignorant libs(redundant), everything is torture.
Rusty, you know the left doesn’t consider the US a “good” country. You blame us for every ill that has beset the world for the last 200 years.
As for the 3000 whom you so casually dismiss, you are a hypocritical POS. You leftists wail and moan if a single person happens to get sick from a drug and sue to get it banned, no matter how many people are benefitting from it. You apologize for terrorists and mass murderers who kill thousands of us, or millions of their own people, then demand execution for GIs at Haditha who may or may not have killed civilians in the heat of a firefight. You fight tooth and nail to ban DDT because it might weaken the shells on some birds eggs, and condemn millions to death from malaria. The 3000 were killed by an act of war against us. The Guantanamo detainees have been captured committing acts of violence against us during our response to that act of war, By the Geneva Convention, since they are not part of an organized uniformed military, they have no rights and no privileges under the convention. They could, and should have been, executed as soon as all usable intelligence had been extracted from them.
khan said:
Hell, even our Supreme Court can’t do that!
I just logged on to remind LGM & his cronies that are posting here what a bunch of traitorous little “My little Pony” dolls they are.. Limited government is not the same as “retarded government” LGM. You’d think you’d be able to figure that out on your own being an “educator”. Or is that a “corrupter of minds”? Hard to tell the difference with liberals in education these days. You will reap what you’ve sown on this issue. It’s gonna hurt too..
That is all. ~Dan Lee
Correctomundo.
If anyone is interested here’s a
good movie illustrating the difference in the rules between fighting WWI and fighting WWII. The roles of the Colonel and his German friend are almost identical to what we see today between Kennedy and Scalia. Some things never change. They show it periodically, hardcore islamist sympathizers need not bother tuning in.
And yet, I’m guessing you’re pretty ok with the aborting of millions of babies.
Freakin’ liberals. Hell, let the terrorists out and put them in Gitmo. They’ll be the death of this country before anyone else.
Put them all on a ship and have it mysteriously sink. Yes, I’m being facetious, but this ruling angers me. I am not a lawyer but went to law school and am a member of the Federalist Society so I question this ruling. I am ashamed of the 5 judges and those who support this ruling. There went our soveriegnty!
Lawyer for Bin Laden Driver Wants Charges Dismissed
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Osama bin Laden’s former driver may not go on trial this summer at Guantanamo after all. The military lawyer for Salim Hamdan says the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of Guantanamo prisoners is likely to at least delay the Yemeni’s war crimes trial.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer told The Associated Press he will file a motion to dismiss the war crimes charges against Hamdan based on the court’s finding that Guantanamo prisoners have constitutional rights.
The defense lawyer said Wednesday he will argue that Hamdan was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Pentagon declined immediate comment.
————————————-
Thank you Leftist Lunatics!
We are screwed.
The enemy will perceive us as weak and soft just as they did when Clinton was in office.
They will be released to return to the jihad.
Liberals will get to feel good about themselves.
Americans will die.
I cannot believe your cavalier, almost callous, attitude of jovial acceptance towards an act by the Court that places all our lives and safety in harms way!
While this ruling may be to your one-world liking, it is not to mine. Thus I will lend my voice, my vote and my wallet to any candidate who vows to overcome this disastrous decision.
To paraphrase – just because the Court has made an idiotic ruling doesn’t guarantee it will be enforced.
sovereignty, I mean.
La campaña del Mccain de Juan is not getting my vote, EVER…
~Dan Lee
NEAR FUTURE
Grandson: Grand-dude, why is there a tank at the Mosque?
Grand-dude: It is their right given to them by the courts.
Grandson: Grand-dude, why did they come and take your guns then?
Grand-dude: I am an American, I have no more rights.
I can’t believe your cavalier, almost callous, attitude of jovial acceptance toward blatant disrespect and disregard for the Article III of the Constitution.
(Oops! Sub’d too soon.)
Whose rights? Is the US the world’s guaranteeor of human rights?! Now that would be ridiculous – unless one thinks we should go to war with country that infringes upon its citizens’ rights.
Bye Bye far right America! Hello, human rights. Wow, just imagine, not only will we get to lock up “bad people” we can also try to ensure “innocent people” are not locked up for years without access to a lawyer or getting a fair trial.
Something tells me Jesus would approve to fair trials, no matter who the person was.
That’s a great point. To retarded liberals like Rusty and lgm, a FOREIGN terrorist who wants to destroy our liberty and freedoms has fundamental Constitutional rights, and yet an unborn innocent American has none.
Rusty has absolutely no understanding of our Founding Fathers. They did not create a mob democracy; in fact, they were scared to death that liberty would not survive one.
There is no way that our Founding Fathers would have ever intended foreign Muslim terrorists captured abroad, intent on creating an Islamic terrorist state, to have “Constitutional” rights.
On June 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm, chapoutier said:
Sorry, but I will not put my family at risk for Article III.
Let’s see now (opens wallet), nope nothing left in there. Sorry guys, I just can’t afford to pay for public defenders of non-citizens detained by the US military. Now go back in there and rethink this, you idotic poinyoins!
# 15 – I meant to comment but forgot.
Let me just remind everyone…
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”…
Who said this and when was it said?
Is it time?
Publius, spare me. I was at the Pentagon two days after the attack and I’ve visited Ground Zero. So, according to your twisted logic, that makes me just as qualified to talk about this as you are.
Just got mugged for the first time last Sunday. And yet I’m still a Democrat who hates harsh sentencing and is against the death penalty. Imagine that.
And my 9/11 comment was in response to people thinking that this country is in grave danger. We’ve been substantially attacked once in the last 100 years. And our casualty count is peanuts compared to what other countries have had to deal with.
Saying that our country is in grave danger and that we need to indefinitely incarcerate people is the worst kind of exaggeration. Being attacked does not give us the right to throw out human rights as if they weren’t worth their weight in garbage.
You’re right. And I think the Founding Fathers were wrong (just like on a lot of things). The 14th Amendment changed the rules though. When Americans capture a foreign citizen when there is no declared war, the Constitution comes into play.
Well I think this Supreme Court ruling will need to be renamed: …the “Kill them all on the Battle Field Decision”.
A fair trial means the opportunity for one leftard to hang the jury and free the islamist as we are already witnessing. Oh and another benefit, Americans will be forced to sit on islamist juries the court knowing full well that poses a grave risk to the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of not only you but your family too. I too see bad things on the horizon, enjoy your fun while you can leftards.
I can’t believe your cavalier, almost callous attitude of jovial disregard for stare decises, given how much you try to sanctify it when applied to Roe v. Wade.
I interpret Rusty’s comments as saying the American lives lost on 9/11 amount to peanuts.
If I lost a friend or family member on 9/11, I would be very insulted by your comment. Actually, I haven’t, and I am still insulted by your comment.
That is the one ray of hope. The military is overwhelmingly conservative. Liberals don’t join the military; real Americans do.
Ultimately it is the military that enforces anything in a society. For example, the militaries of countries around the world have protected their countries from going communist or Islamist.
There is going to come a point when the American military will simply state that they will not allow terrorists to have freedoms and kill American troops. In the next few decades, it will surely be the military that will protect us from our enemies within (e.g. liberal judges and Muslim terrorists) by taking away forcefully their “rights” to destroy our freedoms and liberty.
On June 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm, sausage said:Bye Bye far right America!
In your dreams! This ruling, and others like it, merely ensure our return to majority status – if not in this election, then certainly the next – guaranteed!
Define “bad” and “innocent” people.
Seriously, though, throwing rocks at the four liberal judges on the court seems a bit misguided to me, because their votes were inevitable given their ideology. The fact is, only one judge was responsible for this ruling – Kennedy. What is truly appalling is that so much damage can be and has been done to the country by one justice for no more reason than that he is a publicity hound, and rules according to what will give him the most press.
Sausage, you are a jerk. You should think about the human rights those in the military receive from those who “capture” them. You are a clueless, dangerous clown.
Rusty, sorry about your mugging but I still cannot fathom why innocent children can be thrown away but criminals deserve all the bubbles of life. Heck you don’t even want them to get the Sheriff Joe treatment do you? You libs just don’t get it but then again you don’t have to. You can just float along on a human rights cloud and be happy with yourself and look down your nose at those of us who think that people who want to kill us should be locked away for a long time. It was grand that you went to the Pentagon, did you donate any to that fund, because you know, the military only got what their life insurance was, no money like the rest of the poor victims got. You might want to think about too, as I told Sausage the treatment our troops get when they are captured. I told you all what my husband saw in 06 when he had to guard and take care of Pvt’s Tucker and Menchaca (sp?). But who cares about what happens to them right?
Really? Where is that stated in the Constitution?
You’re a typical, dictatorial liberal, Rusty. You make things up, then try to force your personal opinion on everyone else by claiming it is “Constitutional.” It is not constitutional or democratic.
This decision, as its ramifications become clear to the American public, may well doom the far left loons as people realize these fanatical Soros supported idiots are determined to destroy the United States
Gabe, there’s generally about 7% libs (what I ran across during my time and what hubby says still goes today) but you’ll find the JAG Corps and the Medical Corps are predominately liberal. Those who “pound the ground” as we liked to say, are overwhelmingly conservative. The majority of liberals feel it is beneath them to serve and their “support the troops” garbage really gets old.
could that something be…Satan?
“If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.”
We are under invasion!
How many illegals are in this country? And how many terrorist cells do you think there are?
Why is it when our government is faced with a decision that impacts every American it almost without fail makes the wrong decision?
TRIAL LAWYERS RUNNING AMUCK CONTROL THIS COUNTRY
Apparently you missed hearing about Pearl Harbor and WWII. I keep trying to think of you as an intelligent, albeit ignorant and misguided person, but you keep coming up with things like this.