Media Watch: Laura Ingraham joins ABC News
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.
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 â€“ 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 â€˜killed innocent civilians in cold blood’ â€“ 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