Supreme Court Surrenders to Terrorist Lawyers
Today our nation was made much weaker by a bunch of nuanced-thinking judges.
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.
Chief Justice John Roberts sums up the idiocy in his dissent:
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.
Does this mean that every time a terrorist is captured, it must be handled like a police bust; crime scene secured and processed, evidence gathered, chain of custody, etc? Do soldiers now have to read Miranda rights before taking a terrorist into custody?
Simple solution really: TAKE NO MORE PRISONERS!
Category: Politics
New Rules of Engagement, read them their Mirandas or you can’t shoot back.
No prisoners, no custody, no problem.
It’s completely amazing. Everyone else in the world, no matter where they are, now have U.S. Constitutional rights! Of course, law-abiding Americans here in the United States, do not have such rights – they are reserved only for criminals.
Given the dhimmi-surrendering of England and Australia, where do we go from here?
…no expensive legal battles clogging up our courts…no media-circuses for the jihadis and their Moonbat sympathizers to spew their anti-American propaganda…
Incidentally, I was just reading an interesting article by jihadism expert Walid Phares of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, wherein he declared that the jihadi propaganda machine will win the Guantanamo trials:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.343,css.print/pub_detail.asp
Excerpt:
“…the conglomeration of all anti-American political forces, including many radical circles within the United States, will unleash its attacks against Guantanamo and what it represents, meaning the existence of the “War on Terror”. A significant ideological segment of the political establishment in America has been pushing the slogan of an “orchestrated war” which must be ended. To them, the trial of the terrorists in Guantanamo is an opportunity to bleed U.S. efforts in the confrontation…”
This sounds like a job for the ANSWER Coalition.
The Supremes have basically just said we ARE the world’s Police Force. (I like the Take No Prisoners line of reasoning over this. After 9/11 I was so angry that I wanted to haul all these thugs to the top of the Sears Building in Chicago and say “You want to learn to fly?… start flappin Bitch”. )
The thing the Moombats won’t get is the “war criminal” label they bash President Bush with is Bovine Scatology. He has said he doesn’t agree with the decision, but WILL obide by it. Wow… some criminal. Their buddy Chavez would have dissolved the court and done it any way he pleased.
I agree with COB6. “Take no prisoners”