a letter to my cousin in Iraq.

Well now I've seen it all.

The allies of jihadistan in the Supreme Court today performed a coup de gras on the Bush Adm.efforts to wage GWOT. In this case they overruled a decision that was also supported by Congress.

The ruling invalidates portions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which created military tribunals to hear the cases of those held at Guantanamo.
The decision was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the four liberal justices on the court.
Writing for the majority opinion striking down the Military Commissions Act, Kennedy wrote, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

ABC News: Blow to Bush: Guantanamo Detainees Have Rights in Court

What the hell is he talking about ! He has just indicated that US Constitutional rights are to be granted on a global basis rather than just to US residents and citizens .

Habeas rights have never before been granted to foreign enemy captured on a foreign battle field. I agree with Bradford Berenson who said of the decision:

"The Court's decision today will deepen and complicate an already ridiculously complex and disordered morass of litigation brought by foreign terrorists against our government," said Bradford Berenson, former associate counsel to President Bush from 2001 to 2003. "The decision will magnify the already heavy litigation burdens on our government and, because it is limited to detainees held at Guantanamo, may increase the pressure on the government to close that facility. The available alternatives -- bringing al Qaeda leaders such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the continental United States or sending them back to detention facilities closer to war zones -- are less desirable and less safe for everyone. Such are the perverse and unintended consequences when the courts fail to afford appropriate deference to the political branches in sensitive national security matters."

This destroys the tribunal system at least . So now what ? Why not just have the moonbat judges in the San.Fran 9th Circus court hear the case and appoint an ACLU lawyer to their defense pro-bono ?

The ruling states that Congress cannot act to suspend habeus except through the Suspension Clause ;which states that Congress CAN suspend habeus in times of invasion or rebellion. To my way of thinking ,9-11 was an invasion ...or did I miss something in translation ?

Justice Scalia wrote in dissent :

Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional” test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other Constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes [sic] important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/06-1195.pdf

Right on !!!

Be prepared to start training your troops on the proper way to read Miranda rights and grant them leave so they can testify at the trials .

Or I even have a better idea....... set up all your equipment with the ability to blast Deguello from loud speakers to indicate no quarter . Why take prisoners at all ?

Tom

Choux

Dear angry white guys.....Tom, nothing is perfect in the world of violence, Jihadism, war.....citizens are going to die, *that is a given*, the goal is to keep the numbers to the very least minimum.

tomder55

Skell I'm sure there was loads of evidence that we do not desire to release to a court. Evidence that if disclosed would compromise methods of collection or sources. That is why cases like this cannot be adjudicated in civilian courts where the burden of proof is overwhemingly in favor of the defendant. That is why so many of the detainees at Gitmo have already been released.


Choux ,the burden you would place on the system would make it come crashing down .The terrorists use the system against us Khalid Sheik Mohammed told his interrogators that he would say something to them after he saw his NY lawyers. Well after he got a little wet he began to sing like a canary. He provided substantiated intel that severely has undermined al-Qaeda's operation.

Yes I would've prefered the process to be swifter . But it has been the ACLU lawyers ,the Democrats and the court who have slowed the process down. Now they complain about the time it takes ? Gimme a break !

tomder55

didn't you hear ? we aren't angry anymore we are "bitter " clinging to guns and bibles . :>

excon

Hello tom:

If the burdon of proof is sooooo overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant, how come we have more people in prison than China or Russia where they don't have any rights at all.

No tom, you DRANK the kool aid, and you have a stain on your face.

excon

tomder55

beyond reasonable doubt ...........

is that how we should judge the actions of terrorists on the battle field ?

excon

Hello again, tom:

If we're going to execute 'em, you betcha!! What???? Just a rumor is enough to knock 'em off???? To you, and your side, it is. But, not to me, and not to reasonable freedom loving people around the world.

Yup... What flavor did you drink? Grape??? Yeah, it's all over your face.

excon

tomder55

take no prisoners.

progunr

AGREE!!

Give them a burial, instead of a trial.

Works for me.

excon

Hello again:

This, from the NY Times, says it all:

"Justice = 5 ; Brutality = 4

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are."

excon

progunr

The last real example of brutality that I can recall, was seeing an American, BEHEADED and broadcast on Al-Jazeera television.

The very animals that contribute to this TRUE brutality, are the ones we just granted
constitutional rights to.

I see nothing to celebrate,and find it disgraceful that anyone would.