Lawsuit Stampede

12 06 2008

Update: 6/13 – Scroll for updates…

That rumbling sound isn’t drilling for oil, as it should be. No, that sound is the stampede of liberal lawyers rushing to save terrorists combatants after today’s shameful decision that passed 5-4.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is “at war with radical Islamists” and that the court’s decision “will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

In his dissent, what Scalia wrote will echo far into the future:

The nation will live to regret what the court has done today,” Scalia said in his written opinion.

It’s no wonder al-Qaeda favors Democrats. They are “compassionate.” “Caring.” “Looking out for the little guy.” In reality, it’s all emotion. No brains.

Only hours later, there’s plenty of brains to break it down, though it’s not very pacifying.

Mark Levin:

While I am still reviewing the 5-4 decision written by Anthony Kennedy, apparently giving GITMO detainees access to our civilian courts, at the outset I am left to wonder whether all POWs will now have access to our civilian courts? After all, you would think lawful enemy combatants have a better claim in this regard than unlawful enemy combatants. And if POWs have access to our civilian courts, how do our courts plan to handle the thousands, if not tens of thousands of cases, that will be brought to them in future conflicts?

Michelle Malkin:

Chief Justice John Roberts says the rule of law and the American people have lost out–and with this ruling, we “lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”

Hot Air:

It seems absurd to apply criminal law to unlawful combatants captured during hostilities abroad. Will they require a Miranda reading, too? Do we have to bring the soldiers and Marines who captured them to the trial? In our 232-year history, when have we ever allowed that kind of access to enemy combatants not captured inside the US itself?

If I’m a military commander, I’d start leading like Patton. Stop The ACLU seems to agree:

It [the ruling] doesn’t “help” the murderers and terrorists get habeas corpus, or find rights, it will kill them on the battlefield. What battlefield commander will waste his time trying to figure out what rights the terrorist he is facing has or doesn’t have?

The proper and reasonable decision to make on the battlefield will be to automatically kill EVERY captured person as soon as you do a quick interrogation. After all, anything else will simply just get the commanders on the line in trouble with the “law.”

The Left’s infatuation with bringing down Bush knows limits like sharks on blood. When it’s all over, all that’s left is a bloody mess. America is the biggest loser here. Then again, that is the ultimate goal of the left. America needs to be cut down to size. Yet, in the last 100 years, no country has had the opportunity to take more land than America yet all we took was enough to bury our dead. Then we turned around and helped the countries we just defeated to recover and rebuild. The left sees it as too much power.

All emotion and no brains. Wanna see what I mean?

People for the American Way:

One more Bush Justice on the Court, and the decision would likely have gone the other way. That’s why it’s so important for Americans to realize that in this election year, the Supreme Court is on the ballot. John McCain has already promised the GOP that he would nominate Justices to the Court exactly like those Bush has brought to the bench. This year, we must reverse the tide, and begin to restore a Supreme Court that upholds our individual rights and the laws that keep us free. (emphasis added)

That’s right, they are OUR rights…they keep America free. Not UNLAWFUL, ENEMY COMBATANT, TERRORISTS. How much evidence and common sense is it going to take to get through the emotion of liberals?

Lean Left:

Foreigners in this country are entitiled (sic) to the same rights and protections as US citizens when charged with a crime. It is ludicrous to believe that should change on either just the Executive’s say so or becasue (sic) of the location of the prison. Someone held by the federal government is held by the federal government whether they are in Alabama, Gitmo, or the moon.

If these people are prisoners of war, then treat them as such. If they are not, then they are criminals and should be treated the same as every other criminal in the care of the federal government. Inventing a third class of people that the executive gets to do with as they please cannot be an option under our constitution.

I find it quite hypocritical that when defending elitism, the left shuns Alabama and the rest of the south as backward, out of touch, and not part of progressive America. But when it comes to a…sniffle sniffle…an emotional issue like habeas corpus, Alabama, Gitmo, and even the moon are now part of America. All emotion, no brains. These are not just “foreigners.” They are UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS. Also known as terrorists. Most of them fight for no country. This is unprecedented and our habeas corpus laws do not reflect that, but by today’s decision you would think it does.

These “people” are NOT prisoners of war and they certainly cannot be upgraded to criminal status. Criminals are CITIZENS who break the law and are provided certain rights. A POW is a LAWFUL enemy combatant. A terrorist is an UNLAWFUL enemy combatant. We didn’t “invent” this third class of people. They invented it themselves on 9/11.

All emotion…NO brains.

Update: 6/13 – Wizbang plays out a series of far-fetched, but not too much, scenarios of these terrorists’ day in court. Here’s the best one:

“People vs. Ismail Hussein.”

“Mr. Prosecutor?”

“Your honor, Mr. Hussein was captured in a raid on a terrorist hideout. He was caught with three kidnapped civilians in his custody. He had just finished a video of himself beheading a fourth, and was standing over the body with the knife still in his hand.”

“Sounds ugly. Who led the raid?”

“Sgt. Alleyne, who has been standing by to testify for eight months.”

“How did Sgt. Alleyne know that there were terrorists in that building?”

“She acted on tips from neighbors.”

“Did she obtain a search warrant before going in?”

“No, your honor.”

“Case dismissed.”

In wartime, you are guilty by association. And our military is trained and ordered to find those associations and kill them. That’s what war is. It’s not the emotion of liberalism, nor is it easy for a conservative to promote it either. But it is a stark contrast to a criminal, committing a crime, in America, who is innocent until proven guilty. As well as a lawful enemy combatant committing an act of war against America on our soil, in which case we have habeas corpus. Now, we have extended rights intended for lawful enemy combatants to terrorists, who are neither lawful nor fight for any country. The absurdities of the left never end.




5 responses

12 06 2008
SCOTUS Ruling Proves Liberalism is all Emotion, No Brains : Stop The ACLU

[…] Warner Todd Houston did a great job covering this earlier so I won’t post all the details again, but I wanted to share a portion of my post illustrating the emotion that is liberalism…no brains. […]

13 06 2008

Do you have so little regard for our system of justice that you think it appropriate to have one standard for US citizens held by the US government and another for non-US citizens held by the US government?

Can you seriously suggest that the country is jepordized by allowing the courts to do what they were designed to do: pass judgement on guilt and innocence?

This is a great day for American constitutionalism. It is shocking, however, that four-ninths of the United States Supreme Court find compelling justification to imprison innocent men (i.e., those who might be exonerated at trial) for life without a constitutionally recognized judicial hearing.

My take on this case is posted here.

13 06 2008
Truth and Reason

mbjesq, the following paragraphs will answer your questions and prove my point that liberalism is all emotion. It’s clear that you have no evidence to back up what you are saying other than an failed attempt of condemnation.

In establishing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, President Bush relied on a Supreme Court precedent of more than a half century’s standing, Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), which held that nonresident alien enemy combatants had no right to habeas corpus. As Scalia explains:

“Had the law been otherwise, the military surely would not have transported prisoners [to Guantanamo], but would have kept them in Afghanistan, transferred them to another of our foreign military bases, or turned them over to allies for detention. Those other facilities might well have been worse for the detainees themselves.”

This points to a key limitation in today’s ruling. The majority distinguished Guantanamo from the facility at issue in Eisentrager–a U.S.-administered prison in occupied Germany–on the ground that although the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is technically on Cuban territory, America exercises “complete jurisdiction and control” over it. Thus, detainees have constitutional rights pursuant to today’s ruling only if they are held at Guantanamo.

There is little advantage to the U.S. in sending enemy combatants to a facility where they will immediately be able to lawyer up, and indeed, Guantanamo has admitted few new detainees in the past several years.

It’s possible that Scalia is wrong when he predicts more Americans will die as a result of this ruling. It may be that al Qaeda is a weak enough enemy that America can vanquish it even with the Supreme Court tying one hand behind our back. Anyway, keeping future detainees away from Guantanamo should prevent them from coming within the reach of the justices’ pettifogging.

Perhaps decades from now we will learn that detainees ended up being abused in some far-off place because the government closed Guantanamo in response to judicial meddling. Even those who support what the court did today may live to regret it. Source.

13 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

Limbaugh is absolutely correct:

“The moral of this story is don’t take prisoners.”

==Do you have so little regard for our system of justice that you think it appropriate to have one standard for US citizens held by the US government and another for non-US citizens held by the US government?==

WHAT US citizens held by the US government, and WHAT non-US citizens held by the US government?

Oh, you mean that you wanna lump all of them under the criminal law, even those spies, saboteurs and terrorists — not in uniform, but in civilian clothes — who, by the way, are not protected by Geneva. You idea, of course, is to hinder and impede President Bush, and, if you make it easier for terrorists, spies and saboteurs to prey on Americans, you’re willing to pay that price, even if those who would die as the result — YOUR price — are unwilling to pay that price.

==Can you seriously suggest that the country is jepordized by allowing the courts to do what they were designed to do: pass judgement on guilt and innocence?==

They are not designed to handle military affairs. The military handles prisoners of war and others acting militarily. The civilian courts are designed to handle criminal cases, and spies, saboteurs and terrorists, acting militarily, are not criminals, in the ordinary sense.

==This is a great day for American constitutionalism.==

Of course, if you’re looking to get back and the Commander in Chief cuz you hold a grudge, you’re expected to say that. All you wanna do is impede the CIC, and you don’t care how you do it.

== It is shocking, however, that four-ninths of the United States Supreme Court find compelling justification to imprison innocent men (i.e., those who might be exonerated at trial) for life without a constitutionally recognized judicial hearing.==

The Constitution doesn’t recognize Rights for spies, saboteurs and terrorists any more than Geneva recognizes them. They are supposed to be handled by the military system cuz they acted militarily, not criminally.

13 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

One can only hope that, in light of the ruling, our men, drawin’ nice, clean, pretty beads on a spies, saboteurs and/or terrorists and winding up to heave some grenades on them, will have considered closely about the decision and how they now have the chance to let the creeps have second shots at them in court, then, after release, again on the battlefield, or end it all right then and there. After all, no spy/saboteur/terrorist. No problem. Take no prisoners who will testify and come back to haunt you.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: