Article

2006-06-29 Home Front: WoT

Prediction: Bush & Congress Will Override the Supreme Court's Gitmo Decision

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2006-06-29 12:44|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hopefully, otherwise the ACLU and other terrorist supporters will gridlock our legal process for the next 150 years.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-06-29 13:02|| 2006-06-29 13:02|| Front Page Top

#2 And the terrorists will wait the 150 years for a ruling before they can go to trial. Happy camping for all at GITMO. As far as I'm concerned they can rot while we figure it out. This debate should have happened three years ago and moved beyond the politics. We need to insure our constitution supports events like this. The ACLU and other anti-American hate groups aside, we need to clean this up and get back on the moral high ground. If GITMO is not legal the send them back to Afghanistan and shoot them in a firing squad. That "IS" legal.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-06-29 13:16|| 2006-06-29 13:16|| Front Page Top

#3 Seems pretty simple to me....they are NOT subject to our laws OR to the Geneva Conventions PERIOD. Release for target practice in my mind. Of course, I'm not an ACLU attorney, so I don't know all the "nuances" of this issue, LOL.

Posted by BA 2006-06-29 13:39|| 2006-06-29 13:39|| Front Page Top

#4 Mike -- you got ahead of the press! Just lifted this from Michelle's place:

U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling on the Hamdan case:

"We are disappointed with the Supreme Courts decision. However, we believe the problems cited by the Court can and should be fixed.

"It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger. For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.

"In his opinion, Justice Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem. He wrote, Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.

"We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute."

Posted by Sherry 2006-06-29 14:12|| 2006-06-29 14:12|| Front Page Top

#5 Lindsay Graham once again proves RINOs can come from the South.

Congress passed a law that clearly stated the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction for this or any other Gitmo case. That's what Scalia's dissent focuses on. If the court is going to rule for the terrorists on that, they will surely do so again when the ACLU points out all the defects in the new legislation Graham suggests.

However, no one must be brought to trial pursuant to this ruling. Bush has the option of keeping the terrs at Gitmo till the cessation of hostilities, something that will take 40+ years in my estimation. However, I would take one or two of the craziest, most vicious terrs and try them in civilian courts if that's what the SCOTUS thinks should happen. Tell the U. S. Marshalls Service to provide standard security to the court, no more, no less and let the circus begin.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-29 14:31|| 2006-06-29 14:31|| Front Page Top

#6 I wouldn't trust "Opie" Graham with anything of value, much less the granting of the al Qaeda Bill of Rights.

Start with Opie's comment on CNN about "working with Congress to make this commendable to the world"

Posted by Captain America 2006-06-29 14:42|| 2006-06-29 14:42|| Front Page Top

#7 Nimble: RINO? Senator Graham may be a RINO, or not, but I don't think that statement is particular evidence of RINOism. It looks to me like a perfectly rational response--Judge Bryer thinks the current statute doesn't authorize military tribunals, so we'll pass something that clearly does authorize them ("The Clue Bat Act of 2006" maybe?). I think this a good idea for several reasons:

1. As the article points out, it's a political winner. It'll be fun to see liberal Congresscritters who are facing re-election (*cough* Murtha! *cough) contort themselves while explaining that they oppose the bill, but that doesn't mean that they support civil rights for enemy terrorists.

2. The bill is going to pass, and will thereby abrogate the Geneva Convention with respect to the Gitmo bad guys. (When a treaty and statute conflict, last in time controls.)

3. Sure, it'll be challeneged in court, but by the time it gets to SCOTUS, there could well be a change in personnel. At the very least, the SCOTUS (or the mushy moderates thereon) can itself be quite sensitive to the political winds.

Posted by Mike 2006-06-29 14:46|| 2006-06-29 14:46|| Front Page Top

#8 On the plus side, the donks are already excited about running the 2006 mid-term elections with the bumper sticker "We, the Democratic Party affirm the rights of terrorists who want to kill innocent civilians to be treated equally with all US citizens"

Bela Pelosi has already praised the decision.

Posted by Captain America 2006-06-29 14:46|| 2006-06-29 14:46|| Front Page Top

#9 Well, to mis-quote Andy Jackson:

"The Court has made it's decision. Now let's see 'em resurrect this dead terrorist bastard here."

Posted by mojo">mojo 2006-06-29 14:51|| 2006-06-29 14:51|| Front Page Top

#10 This is a political gift!

Put up the law for a vote. It puts the Dems SQUARELY on the spot - support the President and GTMO, or side with the terrorists. Side with the president and piss off the kos-inspired nutroot base, or side with the nutroot base and hand your opponent a key issue to beat you with.

Rove could not have come up with a better dilema!

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-29 14:51|| 2006-06-29 14:51|| Front Page Top

#11 Mike, I think you're being optomistic about the court, but I'd love to be wrong.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-29 14:53|| 2006-06-29 14:53|| Front Page Top

#12 Mike's right about the Court. This is, at worst, a slight trimming of the power of the Executive branch. After Congress passes a law specifically authorizing what's going on and the President signs it you'll see at least a couple of votes swing the other way.

Personally I'm very worried about the Senate. This is a political gift but only if the Senate has the willpower to remove the wrapping paper. Given their behavior the past couple of years I see no reason to be optimistic. And if legislation should fail to materialize or if said legislation really does turn into something akin to an Al Qaeda Bill of Rights this will be a disasterous political situation.

Posted by AzCat 2006-06-29 15:01|| 2006-06-29 15:01|| Front Page Top

#13 The Supreme Court acts like these sonofbitch terrorists have the same rights as American citizens. These terrorists would kill any of us in a heartbeat--they don't care whether you are a Supreme Court justice or a MSM reporter or the NYTs or the ACLU or a left-wing demo or one of the other variety of moonbats .

Posted by JohnQC 2006-06-29 15:47|| 2006-06-29 15:47|| Front Page Top

#14 I don't see the any eventual law reversing this decision. Certainly a law will be proposed, but since the president made his initial decision, things have changed.

That is, *some* of what he wants may pass, but he doesn't want all of what he had. On top of that, there is *new* stuff, to be added to the bill, that was not part of the original decision.

The spin will be on one side that he got what he wanted, true; and on the other that he lost, because he didn't get what he used to have, which is a half-truth.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-06-29 16:17|| 2006-06-29 16:17|| Front Page Top

#15 seems to me that they simply have to change the wording of the law from:

"...[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

to

"... Notwithstanding any other provision of any other law, domestic or otherwise, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

Posted by mhw 2006-06-29 16:18|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-29 16:18|| Front Page Top

#16 Get that legislation going quick! Murtha won't have to squirm if it hits after he's voted out!

Can this be timed just right?

Posted by grb 2006-06-29 17:02|| 2006-06-29 17:02|| Front Page Top

#17 Check out the "Another Reading" post - looks promising, actually

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-29 17:44|| 2006-06-29 17:44|| Front Page Top

#18 leave off the words "at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.", the focus is too narrow, then you're just opening the same can of worms if another Prison other than Guantanamo is used.
Instead simply stop at the phrase (detained by the Department of Defense ) and it's much clearer.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-06-29 20:10|| 2006-06-29 20:10|| Front Page Top

#19 Allowing al Qaeda to be covered under the Geneva Convention is a freaking joke. Justice Kennedy and crew are full of shit.

Posted by Captain America 2006-06-29 23:17|| 2006-06-29 23:17|| Front Page Top

00:00 Swamp Blondie
23:59 newc
23:56 Swamp Blondie
23:55 Swamp Blondie
23:52 newc
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:46 Old Patriot
23:36 JosephMendiola
23:19 SamAdamsky
23:18 FOTSGreg
23:17 Captain America
23:16 AlmostAnonymous5839
23:11 AlmostAnonymous5839
23:09 Oztralian
23:04 RWV
23:02 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:00 RWV
23:00 Rambler
22:56 RWV
22:55 anonymous2u
22:54 anonymous2u
22:53 RWV
22:49 anymouse
22:47 anymouse