| Follow-up and opportunity for more discussion. I think the USSC blew it. |
| Hugh Hewitt has the best headline -- The United States Supreme Court Versus America: Awarding "The Privilege of Habeas Corpus To Terrorists". This is a terrible decision, written by five justices and their law clerks, that is going to end up with dead Americans. |
| There's a hoary old legal chestnut about how "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Justice Kennedy and four of our other justices have forgotten that. They're extending the protection of the Constitution to a group of people who -- -- are not US citizens or residents -- do not live in the US -- are open enemies of the US -- were captured in battle -- did not abide by the Geneva Conventions themselves -- reject our Constitution -- reject everything we stand for -- want us dead. Amazingly enough, Justice Kennedy doesn't understand that, and at the end of his opinion he pretty much admits that he and the other justices and judges don't understand, and don't have the information, and don't have the analysis skills to understand what terrorists are doing and what the threat is to our country. But he still thinks they can be released -- and make no mistake, this is all about releasing terrorists. Habeas corpus is the thin edge of the wedge, and this centuries-old legal tradition will be used to free terrorists who will then seek to kill Americans. |
| Careful how you say that, 'just going to be gone' has different meanings to different people ... |
| It's not just that more liberal district court judges will get a crack at releasing terrorists, it's that we'll have a couple of hundred judges, each with their own opinions, views and bias, making decisions. Anyone think they'll all render the same opinions on the same mooks? Anyone? Bueller? And so all these decisions will be appealed, and the whole thing will eventually end up back at the USSC, whereupon the government will be told once again that whatever procedures they set up, it isn't good enough. |
| Justice Scalia understands that there is a war going on. He also understands that the Constitution gives the Executive and Legislative branches of government responsibility for starting, conducting and ending wars. The Judicial branch doesn't have a role in war, and it certainly appears that the Framers got that one right. |
Thursday marked the third time the justices have rejected those efforts as being insufficient.
| Not that they've told us what is acceptable to them; we were supposed to read their opinions and some turkey entrails to figure that out ... |
| The victims of the terrorists are still dead, too ... |
| Other than that they're likely to kill people, since they were captured on a battlefield. |
| A few were indeed tortured. That was wrong. The rest will likely go free because the liberal judges won't want to pay attention. |
| Since when can a judge order a prisoner to be transferred? Especially if the other country doesn't want the mook? |
| Since when do judges make those decisions? I said yesterday that the simplest work-around to handling the prisoners, other than shooting them (which we don't want to do, as much as we want to do it) is to hold them in cooperation with and in another country. If we grab them in Afghanistan, we hold them in Bagram. If we grab them in Iraq they go to a prison there. Just what exactly will a federal district court judge do about that? I'll tell you what: the lawyers are now planning to extend their ability to 'regulate' how the US keeps prisoners by reaching into other countries. One of the premises of the ruling today is that we control Gitmo completely, but we don't control Bagram or Balad in that way, so as long as our allies will cooperate, we have a solution. The Amnesia Int'l folks have already thought of that one, it seems, so we'll see them waging law in the near future. We need to empty Gitmo ASAP. Throw the less valuable mooks back into the field and make sure, if they ever pick up a weapon again, that they don't become prisoners. |
Some outside critics were were supportive of the ruling. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University here, said that "the impact of this decision is enormous for the legal system. We have lost so much credibility internationally."
| In part because of folks like you. Had we handled these mooks just as prescribed by the Geneva Conventions, the mooks would be dead/incarcerated already. |
Administration critics, such as Dalia Hashad of Amnesty International USA, still worry that the Pentagon will seek to get around the court's mandate, perhaps by releasing detainees to be jailed in other countries before their cases can be reviewed. "The Bush administration has been so adamant about doing what they want, regardless of its legality, that despite today's claim that Bush will respect the decision, I'm still concerned that he'll find a way to do what he wants," she said.
| Bush just said he'd abide by the law, Dalia, so he's not been getting around anything. Sure wish Amnesia Int'l would pay this much attention to Daniel Pearl's killers ... |
John McGinnis, a law professor at Northwestern University, said that while he disagreed with the decision, the administration could have avoided the fight by simply cooperating with Congress to find an acceptable procedure years ago instead of going it alone. And, he said, it was a matter of a weakened president no longer having the political muscle to fend off defeat. "It would have been much harder to strike this down when Bush was a popular president with substantial more time remaining in office," McGinnis said, "than when he was an unpopular lamest of ducks."
| I propose the Twenty-Eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States -- Section 1. The right of habeas corpus, and other rights of the people under this Constitution, shall not be construed as to apply to persons who are not citizens of the United States, and who are held by the United States as enemy combatants in time of war. Section 2. No citizen or subject of any Foreign State shall be held by the United States, outside of a time of war, except as provided by law or treaty. Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. |