In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.
I disagree with the decision. I think at some time, they must have hearings. But I think it's better served in the military courts, when the time comes. The time is not now, the time is not while conflicts are still going on.
But, let's be clear here. This does not mean the prisoners will automatically be released. It simply indicates that these thugs must be allowed access to the federal courts.
There are those that would love for us to release these people, so they could go right back to fighting and planning terror attacks against the U.S. and the entire West. There are those that want them in the civilian courts, so they can make lawyers rich. Some of these people will claim victory, others will say it doesn't go far enough for their likings.
But in all of their whinings, one thing has to be established as an immutable truth in this issue. The ones who have complained loudest about this particular court, can no longer claim it is a Bush rubber stamp.
2 comments:
Let me attempt to find a ray of sunshine in this horrible, demoralizing decision: anti-American a-holes the world over can find another whipping boy. No more "no-rights zone" crap spewing from their stinking mouths.
In fact, TERRORIST SUSPECTS NOW HAVE GREATER RIGHTS THAN US SERVICEMEN SERVING IN COMBAT. That's what particularly bothers me about this decision. Aside from the fact that it sets precedent, rather than follow the 200 year jurisprudence on the law of war.
Worse, this statement is, unfortunately, incorrect:
But, let's be clear here. This does not mean the prisoners will automatically be released. It simply indicates that these thugs must be allowed access to the federal courts.
First, this means, presumably, that the gov't will have to present secret evidence to al Qaeda, or in the alternative, let them go. It means we cannot hold Osama bin Laden for questioning without granting him the right to end the interrogation and find himself a liberal federal judge and get the interrogators to justify the detention, again, by disclosing secret evidence. This forces the CIA and Pentagon to expose their information, means, methods and sources.
It's devastating.
Second, we are now squarely on the slippery slope towards granting foreign al Qaeda, captured in a war on foreign soil, all the rights and priviliges of US citizens - something American law had not, until yesterday, ever taken a step towards recognizing. Someday soon, US marines may need a warrant to arrest bin Laden. Someday soon, basic training will include the Miranda warning. Someday soon, CIA interrogators will be advising bin Laden or another enemy combattant of his right to remain silent (would you like a glass of water while you wait for you lawyer, Mr. bin Laden?).
I haven't read the case, yet, though, so maybe (hopefully), I'm overreacting.... And in any case, I should thank the liberal justices for giving McCain a great election year issue - federal judges. Who do you want, America? Judges looking out for al Qaeda's rights, granting them rights US soldiers don't even have? Or judges concerned with preserving AMERICANS' rights? Someone please ask Barack Hamas Osama what he thinks of this decision!
We once had a real president, who made two interesting statements about the judiciary. In the first he said, “In England the judges should have independence to protect the people against the crown. Here the judges should not be independent of the people, but be appointed for not more than seven years. The people would always re-elect the good judges.” Yesterday’s ruling seems to indicate that when Supreme Court justices are not accountable to anyone, when they rule against common sense with impunity without fear of repercussion, it is possible that President Jackson was correct. Later, Jackson said of the Supreme Court, “ . . . they have made their decision, now let them enforce it.”
SCOTUS does not have the power to enforce any ruling; it relies upon the law-abiding nature of both branches to comply with their determination. Our problem (and not for the first time), is that the Constitution says exactly what the Supreme Court says that it says. Criticism of Kennedy is spot on; and I agree with Greg that the Kennedy swing establishes a dangerous precedent. In my view, Kennedy is clearly an idiot; he clearly ignored case law to justify a preconceived notion about the applicability of habeas corpus to foreigners not residing in the United States, and worse – unlawful enemy combatants who pose a clear and present danger to the security of our nation and its people.
We will see how this plays out . . . ultimately it may have no effect on the retention of unlawful combatants at Gitmo, but it does place civilian federal judges in a position to rule over military operations. Only time will tell; but as with the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, the people must now be wary of court decisions that may place them in harms way. Sadly, it is a practical impossibility to dismiss a Supreme Court justice, and we are at their mercy. It will be interesting to see if we suddenly find more unlawful combatants killed on the field of battle, rather than taken prisoner; I certainly would not object.
Post a Comment