The liberal leaning US Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision (Chief Justice Roberts had recused himself and the ?moderate? Kennedy siding with the 4 lib Justices) that the President cannot order terrorist enemy combatants to be tried before a military tribunal. The court was wrong in citing the rules according to the Geneva Convention. This inexplicable ratiocination, using the Geneva Convention as its' basis for this bonehead decision, is not applicable in the situation we find ourselves in as we carry on our fight against terrorists.
The Geneva Convention applies to those who sign it, and to those who wear the uniform of a recognized country, with clearly visible insignias, and whose weapons are openly displayed. None of these scenarios are applicable to the current crop of residents at Camp Gitmo. But what the heck, just for laughs, I guess, the liberal Justices, used it anyway. This is simply and clearly yet another instance of courts—and now even the US high court—making up decisions as they go along, in order to justify their own ideologies. Although these decisions fly in the face of the US Constitution, these liberal courts have determined that they are far above the laws of the land. (1)
The 1949 Geneva Conventions were created in the aftermath of the horrors of Nazi Germany. The idea behind the Geneva Conventions and similar agreements was to codify the rules of "civilized war," and to ensure that no nation would want to violate those rules. The warning that any fighting force that violates those rules will not be able to claim their protection if captured is an explicit part of the Conventions. To make it perfectly clear, Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically states, "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."Even if one ignores the fact that terrorist groups are not a nation, the Conventions set very specific conditions under which a captured combatant may claim POW status.
In a stupefying circumvent of their Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court voted that Geneva Convention protections must be modified and broadened to include captured terrorists. In effect, this decision commands the President to violate the Geneva Conventions and renders them meaningless. The Court also denied the President the ability to convene military tribunals for prisoners. This makes military courts-martial or civilian trials the only avenues for prosecuting enemy combatants (terrorists) without an act of Congress, which some Republican Senators are looking at possibly doing. Presumably, the Dems will fight any such legislation.
In their ruling, the Court also extended Constitutional protections to captured terrorists, including the rights to counsel and to confront their accuser, and the presumption of innocence - an "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights."
My, aren't we civil?
These are rights that have always been reserved for those who live under our Constitution, not foreign enemies whose aim is to destroy it. It's hard to imagine General Patton sending soldiers away from the battlefield, to sit in court waiting to testify against captured Nazis. Patton would have simply ordered that no prisoners would henceforth be taken alive. Then again, half the Federal government wasn't trying to lose that war with the enthusiastic cooperation of the media. But I do wonder how this will affect the decisions made by our troops from here on out. What's their motivation not to take a "no prisoner" approach on the battlefield? (2)
The court's decision means that detainees will have to be granted the increased rights of prisoners-of-war, something the Bush administration has always opposed since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. He had good reasons. To put these terrorists on trial in civilian courts or open sessions of military commissions opens the door for classified information to be broadcast to the whole world, and yes, that includes the terrorists. As it is, the US news media has been doing an excellent job of providing America's enemies with abundant information; now we'll also have shysters leaking top secrets.
The Supreme Court ruling brought smiles to the faces of left-wing groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and so-called human rights organizations, and thunderous laughter to the detainees, detainees' relatives, and their fellow jihadists.
Both the Bush Administration and its critics acknowledged that while the ruling was a huge blow to a central part of America's anti-terror strategy, it did not require the immediate closure of the Guantanamo prison. The Democrats seemed a bit disappointed when they heard that part. While the Democrat lawmakers made the rounds of the news shows gloating over their empty victory, President Bush reminded them that: "The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the streets," he said.
The President also vowed that the Guantanamo detainees would not be freed. His response infuriated the terrorists' allies -- lawyers, Democrats and news media -- who want prisoners treated like normal criminal defendants. After all, this is truly not a war and does not require military action, but should be handled as a police action.
Many hailed Thursday's ruling as a major victory. But if it was a defeat for Bush and for Americans, then it must be a victory for left-wing politicians and reporters from the treasonous New York Times, since the court's decision aids terrorists.
For instance, Zachary Katznelson, a lawyer who represents 36 inmates, said, "I think it's a fantastic victory for us. It's a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court to President Bush." Amnesty International said, "The US administration should ensure that those held in Guantanamo should be either released or brought before civilian courts on the US mainland."
And of course, the swimmer, Senator Edward Kennedy, said the verdict was a "stunning repudiation" for Mr. Bush. "The Supreme Court has reminded the president and [defense] secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law even when our country is at war." But I didn't think we were at war, Ted.
The Supreme Court case was the result of an appeal by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni, who has admitted to being Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard. He faced a single count of conspiring against American citizens. And the Democrats are celebrating his victory? Why is this a victory?
Taken together with the previous Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo inmates must have access to attorneys, Thursday's decision makes fighting a war on terrorism much more difficult for the Bush Administration and for those in command positions. The Americans lose under this scenario. The Dems don't see it. Or, maybe they don't care.
Probably one of the happiest Democrats is Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who got booted off the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking classified information.
Sen. Leahy boasted, "The Justices have given our system a constitutional tonic that is sorely needed if we are to counter terrorism effectively, efficiently and with American values." Of course, as usual, Democrats never explain how handcuffing the military and law enforcement make our counter terrorism strategy and execution more effective and efficient. And with their comrades in the news media they never will have to explain.
Then, the Socialist gem from Vermont, Rep. Bernie Sanders, joined Leahy in praising the court's ruling and in criticizing the Bush Administration's policy regarding the detainees.
"Today's Supreme Court decision is an important victory in the effort to reign in the abuses of power we have experienced under the Bush administration," Sanders said in a statement released by his office. This man gets elected? What abuse did he experience. All of a sudden it's "we" who are saved? How are we saved by giving more rights to terrorist thugs?
Leahy called the decision "a triumph for our constitutional system of checks and balances. I commend the justices for acting as a much needed check on this administration's unilateral policies that have clearly stretched the bounds of the president's constitutional authority."
I've got a great idea, those clowns in Vermont elected a Marxist and a treasonous leaker, so how about we send the detainees to Vermont and keep them there? (3)
How did we ever get to this place that we now find ourselves in? We need to give civil liberties to non-citizens ..... to evil sub-humans that live and die to wreak this kind of carnage?
RELATED:
The Hamdan Decision By Rich Galen
I don't see Thursday's Supreme Court ruling as anything like a "sweeping rebuke" of the Bush Administration's tireless efforts to keep people from coming to America to kill us. In fact, Justice Stephen Breyer, who voted with the majority, wrote in a concurring opinion, "Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."
Let's see how happy the Democrats are when they have to vote on that legislation...GOP Senators Push for Military Tribunals
The Supreme Court's rebuff of the Bush administration's Guantanamo military tribunals knocks the issue into the halls of Congress, where GOP leaders are already trying to figure out how to give the president the options he wants for dealing with suspected terror detainees.
That way forward could be long and difficult. Congress will negotiate a highly technical legal road - one fraught with political implications in an election year - under the scrutiny of the international community that has condemned the continued use of the Guantanamo prison."
