Gitmo ruling fallout
Read John Yoo for the diagnosis.
Read Andy McCarthy for the fix.
Posted in: Gitmo
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
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Gitmo
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Pundit & Pundette
» Various and sundryStop The ACLU
» Obama To Hold Another Prime Timer To Explain Our Afghanistan Strategy To Islamic ExtremistsAmSpecBlog
» Lieberman Says He's "Stubborn" on Gov't PlanTigerHawk
» Negative equity
Read McClatchy for examples of accused terrorists who were nothing of the sort and now, thanks to the Supreme Court, have the opportunity to end their baseless incarceration!
Avoid this court decision altogether, let them go, I have confidence they will re join whatever group they’re part of and our guys will take em out.
I was mulling over Ex parte Quirin last night and it’s a marker of how liberally deranged things have become. Bizaro.
Simply amazing how SCOTUS performed the ultimate in political coupes.
Am I the only one that sees a return to the Geneva Convention that we have signed but our enemies have not?
Haven’t the liberals declared in the past that we should abide by the Geneva Convention even if our enemies do not?
Maybe the libs could start a trust fund to purchase uniforms for our enemies? I am thinking something in a nice shade of pink.
Caught bearing arms against our troops while wearing civilian garb? We should just abide by the Geneva Convention.
Just a thought.
The liberals and their hate for President Bush are hurting this country. They don’t care about what the effects are of their decisions, as long as it hurts the President. I am not a hateful person, but with each passing day it becomes hard not too.
The poor, innocent pizza delivery man, who was just caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, can no go free. Um, riiight.
The Supreme Court directly endangered many lives with this decision. No two ways about it.
To view the right wing hysteria, you’d think all Gitmo detainees had been released. Of course, none have, and none have even been guaranteed the right to a hearing. They have only been provided the right to request a hearing. Forgive me if I’m skeptical that even one detainee will be released based on this ruling.
On the eve of the Civil War, the Supreme Court decided the infamous Dred Scott v. Sanford case – upholding slavery. That decision, which still stands, by the way, was overturned by the Union Army and a Republican Congress that rammed through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.
Once more, Supreme Court sticks its nose into a matter beyond its understanding. This decision will, like Dred Scott, only be overturned by the further spilling of blood of American citizens, and may lead ultimately with the Congressional removal of Supreme Court jurisdiction over purely military matters (I certainly hope so). I’m sure the five majority opinion Justices are willing for other Americans to pay the ultimate sacrifice for their arrogance.
War Tip, I have often been of the opinion we should offer those at Gitmo the same treatment as we offered captured Germans who were not in uniform. Speedy trial, followed by speedy trip to the gallows.
And when our troops are killed attempting to follow judicial legislation rather than fighting to survive … when will they be capable of returning to their lives?
Granted, tragedy happens in life and even more so in times of war. That certainly does not make it right but … Again, I think you are missing the larger point here that the SCOTUS jumped in even after Congress had already complied with their demands.
Smoking laws began small and grew until govt could regulate what we do in private business establishments and even our homes. The scary precedent here is that the SCOTUS will now be able to intervene, uninvited, any time that they do not agree with what Congress does.
It bodes poorly for any further checks and balances does it not?
Nicely put by John Yoo, but I can’t believe President Bush will allow this ruling to stand. If he had any stones (I know wishful thinking) he would tell the court to enforce their ruling.
In a just world I would love to see those that have cheered for these rights for the unlawful combatants under our control have to host one of these medieval savages in their home while they await their detention trials. Put we live in anything, but a world where justice wins as the recent SCOTUS ruling has reminded us all.
I think a result of this will be that US soldiers will take no prisoners from now on, which in some ways is not so good because it removes a good source of information.
What amazes me is that the article in WSJ is written by a Berkeley professor! Boy will he be the hated man on campus now! Top man for telling it like it is.
Supreme Court…..LEAST powerful of the three branches of Federal Government…
That was the Origional Intent of the Founders…
Through the years…lazy Presidents and CYA Congress people–have allowed the LEAST branch to become the FINAL say…
I say>>>>>NAY and ENOUGH!
Professor Yoo–Berkeley…!!???
Can it be true??!!!
He makes sense!
John Yoo is basically a Stalinist who believes in the concept of a “unitary executive,” which is a ten dollar word for dictator.
German prisoners were uniformed regular army soldiers, so there was really no question whether they might be people arbitrarily imprisoned by a unitary executive with a penchant for secrecy.
CS,
yeah, i had to read that part twice as well…someone in berkley with some common sense seems almost magical LOL.
And Rusty, regardless…i’ll take someone being in prison wrongfully, over taking a chance that they’ll blow themselves up (and take a ton of people with them) when they’re let out.
I’m with aj; this ruling is scary for now, but it begs the imperative, “Shoot on sight”. There is no other way to do this.
Our military men & women are not law enforcement officers. Expecting them to bear the burden of criminal-prosecution evidence rules is insane. I.N.S.A.N.E.
Dead men tell no tales.
We know what now must be done on the battlefield.
And yet liberals are the ones accused of being un-American?
Why not imprison all black people in this country? Percentage-wise, they commit the most crime in this country. And you’d rather have innocent people in jail than have a murder wave in Ward 5 of Washington, DC. Right?
Well,if I was a battalion commander in Iraq or Afghanistan,I would have to weight the choices….either send some JAG type along on combat patrols to Mirandize any captured illegal enemy combatants,or just tell my troops: “no more prisoners…terminate with extreme prejudice.”…a real no brainer from where I sit
However beware of unintended consequences. POWs are detained till the war with that country ends (or there is some exchange). Now do we also have writ of habeas corpus on any POW in a war? Or do Army’s start taking the easy way out and make sure they take no prisoners. The current process is actually the humane course.
From the WSJ article:
This quote accurately illustrates why the SCOTUS ruling is beyond wrong – it is downright detrimental to our nation and its ability to defend itself in war, and it fully supports the dissenting opinions of Justices Roberts and Scalia with real-world scenarios that, unfortunately, are bound to play out if this decision is allowed to stand.
And if there is anyone out there who really believes those detainees freed by this ruling will just merrily go on their way to lead normal lives, governed by a new-found philosophy of “live-and-let,” acquired from the experience of having been in Guantanamo,I suggest you use your fav search engine to learn just what the majority of released detainees do once they are returned to their former lives – it is scary.
That is the Left Wing spin of it. The National Lawyers Guild is using that logic. They don’t believe what they say; I don’t know about Red State Skeptic. But the right wing hysteria seems rather justified as these Guantanamo detainees and their friends want to kill us. Five Supreme Court Justices are willing to take that chance for their own partisan reasons, Constitution be dammed. I really doubt anyone believes POWs and Enemy Combatants are afforded civil trials. The founders were well aware that Major John Andre, Benedict Arnold’s handler, was hanged after a summery court martial. In WWII German saboteurs and civilian combatants, including many Hitler Youth, were shot after summary court martials.
But put these cases into the civil courts, let the rules of evidence open all our military secrets, drag it out for years, hell give the lads bail and let them roam our streets. Nobody is calling for that? Want to bet the National Lawyers Guild and Red State Skeptic will get there? And in our right wing hysteria we will be upset. So more Americans will die, what is that to the Elites Feel Good Partisanship? Hell, the Twin Towers were full of Little Eichmanns anyway, weren’t they?
Linda Ronstadt, Harold Pinter, Scott Ritter, Ted Rall, and George Soros all had similair views right after that terrible day. Or is calling it a Terrible Day islamophobic? Help me out here Red State Skeptic, I do wish to be PC.
right wing hysteria rocks
I’m going to have to agree with the 5 justices on this one (as much as it pains me). The job of the Supreme court is to validate the constitutionality of laws that get passed by a congress that seems to care less and less about it.
The Military Commissions Act is a travesty of a bill. It centralizes so much power in the executive branch, that saying it provides dictatorial powers is not far from the truth. From a purely conservative point of view, we should be absolutely terrified with what this bill allows big government to do. Example: The president can order the arrest a citizen of this country, and detain them indefinitely in Gitmo simply by determining him as an “enemy combatant”, or saying his status is being determined. That person now has the right of habeas corpus.
The Supreme Court should not be in the business of rubber stamping these ridiculous fear-inspired laws. They are not supposed to get caught up in the scares of the day. The military commissions act is absolutely geared toward terrorist detainees, but what happens when terrorists are no longer the threat of the day. Government makes laws to use them, and this will get used.
Right now terrorists are enemy combatants, what happens we it’s foreign nationals? Anarchists? Capitalists? Bloggers? History is pretty clear on what Big Government does when the people give up their power.
Strawman, rusty, and a poor one at that.
And how is wanting to make sure we’ve got the right people un-american? I dont recall the definition of being american as being a liberal’s doormat or capitulating to your opinions.
As far as I’m aware, the black people you’re speaking of arent in a combat zone (though DC certainly passes for it at times), and arent in the area where terrorist activities are occurring. These people were arrested in a warzone, under suspicion of committing, planning, or assisting in acts against our troops or allies.
When black people in DC start doing things like that, I’ll be good for them to be arrested too.
#1 Rusty said:
From McClatchy:
from The Shawshank Redemption:
CONSTITUTION be damned? This is the PLAIN language of the Constitution:
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”
There is no rebellion, and there is no invasion in the meaning the founders had in mind. The only way to suspend it is by extreme judicial fiat. If Scalia (and Thomas and Roberts and Alito) want to say the Constitution is not a document that adapts to the times, they better stay consistent.
It is one of the great ironies lost on conservatives who criticize the Supreme Court that the body they hate is made up of 7 Republican appointees and only 2 Democratic appointees.
Would not the safety of the public, or at least the Iraqi public, be served in this respect?
Unless you’re saying screw them since they’re not Americans…
just saying.
Re: AbstractMind
Are you saying we should suspend habeas corpus in this country because:
Or is this a sarcastic post?
There is a double requirement here: it must be in the event of a rebellion or invasion, AND the public safety must require it.
To Republicans who view their party leaders’ judicial choices insufficiently conservative, consider this: William Rehnquist supported affirming Plessy v. Ferguson and overturning Brown v. Board of Ed. Now consider that Rehnquist was consistently to the left of Scalia and Thomas while they were on the court. Seriously, what does that tell you?
If you read the McClatchy report, you’d see that this isn’t the case. Afghans were giving Americans false intelligence to settle old scores.
No, i’m saying that suspending HC would be acceptable (in my opinion), if the public safety were at risk. The language of the quotes above unfortunately don’t cover it. It’s a hole in the law that should be plugged. Things are alot different than they were when that was written.
For the most part, i believe the tribunals were the way to go, albeit they were too slow. I don’t agree with people sitting in prison for 5 years waiting for a trial. But I don’t believe that, in THIS case, that the suspension did more harm than good.
To answer directly to this:
so if its a public safety issue, but there isnt either going on directly, is it still ok to place the safety of the public at risk until the matter can be sorted out? I’d rather err on the side of caution, than to run the risk of innocent lives being lost as a result.
Habeas Corpus was limited to application within this country because the Founders never envisioned that the Constituion would apply to the entire.
Cuba is not a part of the United States. This is judicial over-reaching at its worst. Just as in Dred Scott, the Supreme Court has squandered its legitimacy.
just being technical, the base there is considered as US soil, i believe(same as an embassy..i could be wrong tho).
I have a question that no one … and I do mean no one … is addressing …
They are saying we have to close Gitmo … so where are these wonderful people supposed to be held until their trials …
I suggest they put them in Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens homes until then … with no extra security needed since they have been shown to be such good people … I am sure those who voted for this situation will have no reason to be concerned at having such house guests …
Re: AbstractMind
Gitmo is under the sovereignty of Cuba, it’s under the authority of the US. I think that’s the distinction made by the Supreme Court. Otherwise the government could do whatever they wanted to “enemy combatants” as long as it’s not on US soil.
I read a report of ships being used to detain and interrogate “enemy combatants” – and we all know about the black sites. Being under the ‘authority’ of the US is the distinction made by the Supreme Court here.
Who needs enemies? We will destroy ourselves from within. Our ‘law’ will ensure it.
OK, but as most conservatives will tell you, if you want to change something, amend the Constitution, don’t have judges monkeying around with it.
And most Republicans will tell you that the constitution is just a “Goddamned piece of paper” and “quaint”.
The liberals who are accused of being un-American get that accusation because they would like to see every US troop dead in Iraq if it got a Black man or a woman elected.
They don’t get that if Islamists win, post-modern liberalism is dead once and for all. This century, you’re going to see every single democracy put it to because of your party’s bantering. Just wait and see, Rusty.
Crime in DC is high because of drugs. But of course, you don’t want to stop that. Might make you look intolerant.
No thanks, and we’ll just see how innocent they really are.
The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is required annual training is the US Military and spells out the rules of war designed to complement the Geneva Conventions and to reduce undo suffering to civilian populations in time of war. It describes in detail what it takes to be considered a lawful combatant by wearing a distinctive uniform or badge or be designated an unlawful combatant that does not wear any identification like the medieval savages we are fighting now. The prisoners under our control are considered unlawful combatants under this international agreement and considering our adversaries have murdered their prisoners a proportional response by this country is allowed under the LOAC to do the same to the prisoners we capture. So far the ability to gather intelligence from them has out weighed the right to shot them on the battlefield, but how much longer will command authority allow this practice with this interference in military operations by the 5 traitors in black further putting our warfighter’s lives at risk.
I agree completely with 509th Bob that the Supreme Court has caused grave damage to this nation as it did with the Dred Scott decision and if you add this to the other usurpations by this current court on the 1st and 5th Amendments this nation could again be thrown into another bloody internal conflict to restore our rights and liberties granted by the US Constitution.
Quoting Jon Yoo’s OPINION:
Prisoners of War are afforded their own protections. Made up classifications like “enemy combatant” didn’t exist before this administration.
Quoting Jon Yoo’s OPINION again:
He states that the Justice Department didn’t want any review of the President’s decisions. Thus violating the concept of 3 equal branches of government.
STL, if you don’t want to read a long report from a legitimate news source, then that’s your choice.
But it kind of makes your opinion worthless.
If you think every person we’ve sent to Gitmo is guilty of terrorism, I have a bridge to sell you.
As I said on HA, though the military will never quit until told to do so, I have to ask this question:
“Why should a man, however valorous, stand and die while right and left, fore and rear, his fellows deserted him?”
- From Steven Pressfield’s “Gates of Fire”
If our country is no longer with the military in this fight, as evidenced by two of three branches of government, then what’s the point? But then again, my mission in life right now is to prove both of those branches wrong, to prove wrong the weaklings of our government, and defeat this enemy, the same enemy Leonidas fought.
“First then, no matter what, the
SpartansAmericans will never accept your terms. This would reduceGreecethe United States to slavery. They are sure to join battle with you even if all the rest of theGreeksfree world surrendered to you. As forSpartanAmerican numbers, do not ask how many or few they are, hoping for them to surrender. For if a thousand of them should take the field, they will meet you in battle, and so will any other number, whether it is less than this, or more.”Re: Send_Me
Are you seriously comparing the retrograde cave-dwelling Arab terrorists to the Persian Armies of Sparta’s time?
And if you think every person we’ve sent to Gitmo was just left there to rot, then I have a swamp to sell you.
First of all, the branches of the Federal Government are not equal… and aren’t supposed to be. This is a common misunderstanding.
If you review their powers, it goes in this order… Legislative, Executive, Judicial. The voice of the people, through the Legislative Branch, is supposed to act as the highest authority (although we’ve seen how that can be perverted).
Oh, McClatchy is a real neutral news source…NOT! Here is a list of their “most viewed”
reportspropaganda:Militants found recruits among Guantanamo’s wrongly detained.
America’s prison for terrorists often held the wrong men.
U.S. abuse of detainees was routine at Afghanistan bases.
Where are their stories about the “released” terror suspects who have gone back, re-joined their buddies in Al-Qaeda, and blown themselves up? You won’t find it.
I wonder…is “McClatchy” an Irish term meaning “Al-Jezeera?”
Maybe you lefties on this blog would prefer a solution, regarding un-uniformed combatants, that one of your cultural heroes employed to great effect…take your pick;
The Che Gueverra solution.
The Josef Stalin solution.
The Pol Pot solution.
or,
The Faithful of Islam solution.
We patriots do not believe that aggressors, captured on battlefields, baring arms against our military or those of our allies, are innocent by-standers.
The America is Evil class in this country equates an armed robber, caught in the act, with a terrorist caught in the act. They are not criminals, but rather potential votes for the Democrat Party.
Right_on, investigating America’s shameful record of questionably legal detentions does not make McClatchy a liberal news source.
The answer, silly, is in the headlines of one of the stories you mentioned (as well as the link I provided).
“Militants found recruits among Guantanamo’s wrongly detained.”
If the game is to be played by rules and laws set down by an in appropriate judicial ruling, the fix is obvious. Capture the combatants, ship ‘em where they can be held and interrogated or take no prisoners. ..that does mean overlook the combatants. And I don’t really give a sheet what eurarabia thinks about us either.
Turn them loose in Cuba, sure they would receive a warm welcome, or, send them to Baghdad and let the Maliki government welcome them
From the McCarthy/NRO article:
Hopefully, all is not yet lost and there is still time for Congress to act in countering this horrific decision, before the detainee law suits begin; I understand Sen. Graham has already been busy getting a bi-partisan plan together for that purpose.
Hmmm, the Quds Force, Badr Corps, Hezbollah, Hamas, al Sadr and his little band… Why yes, they are all Persians, or at least Persian-trained/supported.
Lion and Red State, thanks for your thoughtful and original takes…I agree wholeheartedly. Rare stuff around here.
Thanks Dakine,
That fact is that conservatism, by it’s very nature, requires a healthy distrust of government power. To worship at the altar of Big Government and give away our rights for the devil’s trade of security, is the fastest way to lose everything that we fight to protect in the first place. History is clear, and the authors of the constitution knew it, that the greatest threat to a country, is it’s own government.
Our political leaders in the GOP have wholeheartedly embraced Global Authoritarianism as the solution to all problems. We complain when we hear about high taxes, government bailouts, welfare programs, carbon tax, and the loss of our sovereignty, yet we embrace that same government to ignore the constitution while constructing enormous bureaucracies and agencies, printing money, and waging foreign wars in the name of securing our homeland.
HC should be suspended. America has been invaded by 15 million from the south, and how about that public safety, then?
INAL, but isn’t habeus corpus a legal concept for American citizens?
*shrug* This just means we capture them we turn them over to the gentle enlightned hands of the Iraqis.
Or just kill them when we catch them, all nice and neat in the Geneva convention.
Sound good to you, Rusty, Red State? non-uniformed personel committing attacks against non-military targets. Kill. Them. All.
Saves us the trouble of hearings (which we’ve had) and releasing them only to blow them up when they attach later. (which they’ve done)
Everyone wins.
While I can relate to the emotional sentiment here, this line of thinking will only hinder, not help, the war effort. Here’s why:
1) Dead enemies don’t talk, hence no human intelligence from interrogations.
2) Tell me, how effective was it to kill Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi? Oh, yeah, someone else slid right into his spot and continued fighting, hence, arguably, no value added to the fight.
3) If you “kill’em all,” then why should the Iraqis work with us and not our enemies? What’s the motivation? We need to work by, with, and through the Iraqis if we are to win.
“Killing them all” is not the way to win a counterinsurgency.
To hell with you liberals. When they pop a nuke off in one of your filthy infested cities so be it. You idiots have no clue.
Hay, if anything, your stupid sentiments should be fodder for our cause. Here we are, the city liberals, the ones actually in danger of terrorism, and liberals support this SCOTUS decision.
Once again showing liberalism is a mental disorder, Rusty.
Solution – don’t take anymore prisoners.