Another disturbing thought for today

Posted by: ST on June 29, 2006 at 4:58 pm

Taking a quick look around the conservative blogosphere and as well as the punditsphere, there isn’t a lot of optimism being expressed in light of today’s Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Aside from the obvious worries about the consequences of the USSC decision (what it will mean for CIA interrogation tactics, how the administration will go about prosecuting detainees in th war on terror), I just thought of this a few moments ago:

OBL was the mastermind behind the 9-11 attacks on our country – Hamdan was his driver and bodyguard.

Our country, via the USSC, just ruled in favor of OBL’s bodyguard over our government.

This might have been an obvious thought from the moment this news broke to some of you, but it wasn’t to me until just now when I had a chance to take a breather from the work load and assess what happened today.

In Gitmo, and places not so easily visible to the human eye, Al Qaeda terrorists are smiling.

And because this ruling was a “rebuke” for the Bush administration, there are others smiling: liberals and the MSM. Not because of their supposed staunch advocacy for “human rights” but because it equates to a setback for Bush.

This ruling makes no sense to me, especially in light of Congress’ passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (Ann Althouse talks about that here).

SCOTUSblog blogs about what this decision means.

Depressing.

Thur PM Update: Nancy Pelosi praises the ruling and in effect says that she agrees that suspected terrorists (who just happen to not fly the flag of any country) should be afforded the same protections under the US Constitution as you and I have:

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the United States Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.

“The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.”

That ought to be a great campaign slogan come fall: “Vote for us! We’ll work hard to protect the ‘rights’ of suspected terrorists!”

Hat tip: Kim Priestap at Wizbang

Fri AM Update: Diana Irey, the Republican running against Rep. Jack Murtha, had this to say in response to Pelosi’s comments:

“I welcome Ms. Pelosi to the Irey Campaign Team, and hereby deputize her as a Colonel in the Irey Army – because in releasing that statement, she rebukes Jack Murtha for his reckless condemnation of U.S. Marines at Haditha and his unilateral decision to deprive them of THEIR rights of due process.

“Jack Murtha declared on May 17 that our Marines had ‘killed innocent civilians in cold blood’ – before the first Marine was charged, before the first court-martial was convened, before the first soldier was convicted. When he did that, he deprived our own soldiers of the very rights to due process that Nancy Pelosi extols.

“It’s an odd world, indeed, when Democrat leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha care more about making sure that people trying to kill us have rights to due process under the American legal system than they care about making sure that those very same rights apply to those courageous men and women sitting in the sands of Iraq, doing their best to defend us.

“I knew our campaign against Jack Murtha was making progress, but even I didn’t expect to have the top Democrat in the House joining our team so soon.”

LOL! I love it.

Hat tip: Flopping Aces

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

16 Responses to “Another disturbing thought for today”

Comments

  1. Marshall Art says:

    As course as it sounds, we can only hope one of the lib justices goes down in some manner so that Bush can appoint one more with the good sense of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. I don’t know how much comiseratin’ goes on between the justices before they render their decisions, but I hope the four I just mentioned can find a way to be more persuasive to at least one of the other bozos.

  2. NC Cop says:

    I’ve seen several lib posters on conservative websites and I think I can describe their reaction as complete and unrestrained jubilation.

    Once again we see that the liberals and the terrorists have the same goals.

  3. forest hunter says:

    To paraphrase a retired USMC Col. Cadick—Roberts recused himself ergo the outcome but the Supremes have in fact bought time for GW to get the congress online and the savages are to remain out of circulation. We ask for three cards and two are aces.

    I see this as an expected result from those who can’t get past the BDS. Their capabilities are welcomed by the Islamic cult, as well as the enemies of all humanity.

  4. I like most Conservatives, would have rather seen this go the right way, where-in the Liberal activist judges stopped “making law” to the detriment of America, but its apparently not going to happen as long as theres a Liberal skew too the makeup of the SCOTUS.

    OTOH, this can be turned to our advantage in several ways, as has been innumerated by others. Theres also the side benefit that come election time this will be one more move by the Liberals that we can use against them with the majority of American’s, so it will definately be a case of “he who is jubilant last laughs best”. I also plan to work as hard as I can for any and all Republican candidates the next time around. Its time to really show these turncoats that pass themselves off as “American’s” that this really IS America, and not some messed up version of France. I won’t be happy with anything less than a complete repudiation of the Progressive Marxist ideology.

    - Bang **==

  5. Rob says:

    I see this Supreme Court ruling as a defeat for the terrorists and their Conservative lackeys who wish to destroy freedom and turn America into a dictatorship.

    The President has to obey the law. That’s what makes our country great.

  6. Severian says:

    Only a person living in a complete fantasy land could view the Supreme Court decision as a defeat for the terrorists. Man, with more “defeats” like this, and the NYT’s outing of intel programs, the terrorists will be setting up shop in Washington DC before the end of the decade.

    Nice try, but no ceegar, thanks for playing, your consolation prize will be more Democratic losses in the Fall elections.

  7. Dave in CO says:

    …destroy freedom and turn America into a dictatorship.

    Can any rational person posting on this blog point to a single instance where their rights have been violated and their freedoms taken away? Anyone?

    Didn’t think so. People who are this mentally unbalanced need our prayers.

  8. “I see this Supreme Court ruling as a defeat for the terrorists and their Conservative lackeys who wish to destroy freedom and turn America into a dictatorship.”

    You can take your thoughts about “conservative lackeys” and shove ‘em, Rob.

  9. Severian says:

    You can take your thoughts about “conservative lackeys” and shove ‘em, Rob.

    Yeah, as Max Headroom once said “With friends like these, who needs en en enemas.”

  10. LOL Sev.

    I’ve just had enough of the constant whining by the usual suspects about how conservatives want to take everyone’s rights away via using the WOT as a ‘smokescreen.’

    The gloves are off.

  11. sanity says:

    All this will do is force the Amdimistration to make tribunals constitutional, and I can guarantee propsals are already on the way to do just that.

    There has also already been legal precedent that the Commander and Chief, the President, has the power to convene military tribunals that date back even before the Constitution.

    Also (from scotusblog.com):

    the Court merely held that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires war crimes trials held before a military tribunal to be conducted in accordance with the law of war, and that the Geneva Conventions are part of the law of war.

    If it comes into play that these wartime prisoners caught on the field of battle, meaning either firing on US troops or engaged in other terror related activitie, if these prisoners are determined not to accorded Geneva Conventions, then this all falls apart for the Supreme Courts ruling anyways.

    Also, if somehow they do determine that these prisoners fall under Geneva Conventions, then I say we treat them in strict accordance with the conventions, though I have yet to read it, not sure what it says about ethinically prepared foods being served to them and Qurans being handed out, and free soccer time, and yard play, and prayer time…ect. If it is determined that they are held under geneva Conventions, hold them in strict adherance to it.

    Personally, I say we treat them like our friendly Sheriff in arapo county, make it a tent city, no air conditioning, they eat bologna sandwiches and make them wear pink underwear.

    There is plenty of talk that the Court has overstepped its bounds in this decision also, ignoring set precedent (something they hold up like the holy grail in Roe vs Wade), and making a decision that has never been done to any sitting president in history.

    From Freerepublic.com:

    The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, enacted last December, gives the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., exclusive jurisdiction to review habeas-corpus petitions from the terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. The act also expressly provides that, other than that court, “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 . . .” Legislative word-smithing does not get much clearer than that. Equally clear is Congress’s authority to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution describes that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is subject to “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    That by virtue of this move, military commissions are to be condemned as not “regularly constituted” under Geneva, despite their recognition in American law and their active, orderly, rule-bound use in American wars since 1847.

    Some good reviews on this can be seen:
    Here and Here.

  12. - You gotta just love the “Progressives” version of “The Law”, which translates too, “if you don’t like a law just tell your activist judges what you want, and they’ll “make law” in any manner you like.”

    - Once we get the court back in tune with the wishes of the American majority, not to mention the Constitution, which seems to be a “writ of the Devil” for Liberals, I sincerely hope future generations will remember how we slep through the 70′s, 80′s, and 90′s, and never again allow a minority to gerrymander the SCOTUS again.

    - Bang **==

  13. Shrek says:

    At least the moron got his moniker right. Baby steps man, baby steps. Just one word at a time. That’ll do donkey.