Where to begin, to rebuke a Supreme Court Justice or four? In short, the High Court – as in they must have been on something to pass this absurd judgment – decided to overturn a District Court which had refused Habeus Corpus to an Al Qaeda terrorist. Monsters, weasels, and Democrats all cheered the verdict, which means that it will be that much tougher to keep terrorists incarcerated when they are caught. Personally, I would hope the Military adjusts the Rules of Engagement to simply take few prisoners when fired upon by them. If effective incarceration is less likely, then incineration should become more likely.
Apparently, the Supreme Court has watched enough Television to become fooled into believing that Al Qaeda terrorists are somehow just like American citizens; certainly the High Court raised the bar on their expectation of standards. Never mind the history of armed conflicts – which have extensively used military tribunals – or even the Geneva Accords, which while not really applicable to non-uniformed non-national government, non-soldier terrorists, nonethless specifically required military courts (Chapter III, Article 84); nope, the US Supreme Court has once again set up new rights for people trying to murder Americans, even as it scolds the Executive Branch for allegedly trying to “legislate”.
The text of the decision, including concurrence and dissent, is 185 pages of legal wrestling, ill-considered and prejudiced in the main. Justices Kennedy and Stevens, in particular, should hang their heads in shame for working against the interests of our country and citizens, but I doubt they have the honor to consider the gravity of their offense. The very notion that the established and effective practice of our military should be abandoned in preference of an artificial presumption of equal standing by men who fight not for a country or a corps of soldiers, but who instead have deliberately targeted civilians for the shock value, and who have assaulted their own nation for the specific purpose of causing a general insurrection against a freely-elected government, is heinous.
Others are addressing the legal and moral dimensions of this decision, so I am looking at the political effects. Oh yes, there is absolutely a political side to this thing. Court cases show up in election results for two reasons; they wish to protect or prevent similar decisions in the future, and know that the prevailing party will lean one way or another in appointing a certain mindset of judge, and they will react emotionally to a key issue. Terrorism has not left the mind of the American voter, even if a sizable number of SCOTUS justices find it expedient to trivialize the War on Terrorism so they can turn the Constitution of the United States into playdough. And it should be recalled, that certain individuals have repeatedly shown themselves unable to refrain from bombast and arrogance in their statements. Those persons will see a short-term advantage in playing politics with this decision, but I sense that the voters will not be happy with this decision, effectively turning against not so much the President as our troops by refusing to let them handle terrorist prisoners in the best way which allows for some comity with nations and Congress, while still maintaining vital control of the most dangerous threats to America. Although some will be reminded that some of America’s worst enemies seem to wear judicial robes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Anybody who thinks that this case is not better captioned Clerks of the United States Supreme Court vs. George W. Bush underestimates both the left's resentment of the President over social issues and the influence of liberal law school graduate law clerks on the senescent Justices who should be dozing on their back porches instead of trying to manage the war on terror.
ANybody still think that letting democrats win to 'teach repub;licans a lesson' is still a good idea? Will you still think so when the newly democratic senate forces the placement of another Kennedy or Souter on the SUureme court? Will you cheer that day? As legislators elected as a result of a conservative temper tantrum enable judges like that to rule on the supreme court bench for _20 years)?
Will you be warm and happy about the temper tantrum then?
(Obviously not direct4ed at D.J. or even really the readers here. I think those its directed to know it.
Remember:
The court said that we had to treat jihadists according to the Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Convention states that unlawful soldiers, captured out of uniform can be shot out of hand by the soldiers capturing them. No uniform -- no reason to accept the surrender. Do that -- when they surrender, not once they are at a detention camp, and the issue of tribunals becomes moot.
Post a Comment