SUPREME INDIFFERENCE

The US Supreme Court has become a shrine to latter day liberalism over the years, and it is only in recent times that President Bush has tried to redress the imbalance.

Of course these things take time and so it comes to pass that the Supreme Court has concluded that the Administration had overstepped its authority in setting up military tribunals to deal with the Jihadists at Gitmo. Amazingly, the ruling came in response to a case brought by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. He is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal, but demanding to be tried by a civilian tribunal or court martial, where proceedings would be more open and defendants would have greater access to the evidence against them.

Now, as Victor Hanson points out, we would be inviting thousands of lawyers and public defenders to argue, on behalf of their clients, that we are not in a real war but simply prosecuting common criminals. Numerous trials and appeals as costly and circus-like as the drawn-out spectacle of Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker) would likely follow. And, in the end, Europeans would still object, since the U.S. would be exposing foreign nationals to possible death-penalty sentences. So, in essence, we would have to set them all free, pay them compensation for their bother, and admit defeat in the war on terror if we are to win liberal and Islamic hearts and minds.

Bush is 100% right not to let the murderers go free. He should go to Congress and get their support for going back to the Supremes to change this atrocious decision. Of course as someone else has pointed out, in its judgement, the Supreme Court claims that the terms of the Geneva Convention apply to the Jihadi spawn at Gitmo. Well, according to the same Geneva Conventions, those fighting out of uniform or in a civilian area can be executed on the spot (or later I suppose?) Can we please force Bush to do that as well? Or is that some parts of Geneva apply but others don't -  you know, the bits that might actually help us?    

Comments

[Daniel Bright]

The question we need to ask the terrorists is "how fairly did you judge those on september the 11th?" How fairly did they judge Kevin Bigley? It's rather sick for him to ask for things he denied his victimes.

[Tom]

Even with the conservatives now controlling the supreme court the right decision was reached. These people should and can still be tried but just because they might be terrorists doesn't mean they dont have the same judicial rights as others.

It is possible that not everyone there is guilty.

[mahons]

David:
The checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution prevent Bush and Congress from revisiting the ruling. The Supreme Court is hardly a liberal institution, and the decision allows for these individuals to be fairly tried (and convicted if guilty). The Gtimo detainees have been a public relations nightmare. The war on terroroism has been undermined by the existence of this policy. The way to combat terrorism is to expose the participants to the light of day via fair trials. The rule of law seperates us from them.

[daytripper]

mahons, i agree with you completely but fair trials would completely unravel the fabricated myth that the US administration is interested in combatting international terrorism.

from the performance in iraq, afghanistan and gitmo, it is obvious that the opposite is current policy and that gitmo and its detainees are the best they can come up with in terms of public perception that they are "on the ball" in the war on terror.

[mahons]

Daytripper:
I don't think that they are actually interested in promoting terrorism (here comes Adrian), but I think they have been operating under the perception that their approach is the only one. It has been the administration's grave fault that they can't seem to acknowledge mistakes. Bush would have far more respect here if he said we've made mistakes and may continue to make them as that is what happens in war. However, despite our mistakes we will continue the fight. Instead, he's settled for I'm right and everyone who doesn't agree with me 100% is soft on terrorism. Thank God the founders of our nation envisioned the Constitutional framework that places checks on his authority.

[fred]

rather sick my ass.
seriously.
useless phrase.

[The Troll]

the only approach to deal with terrorists is to kill them, unless of course your Irish in that case you worship them, and if your British you apease them by giving them seats in government....

What this decision does is win the Republicans the election in the fall. The President overstepped his authority by setting up military trials without the consent from congress. He will now ask for that consent.

The resulting debate will be a circus like you have never witnessed. The Democrat Left is screwed. They can't refuse to allow some form of military trial without losing what little credibility they think they have that they can protect the american public, while at the same time they have been screaming for gitmo to be closed but have no clue on how to do it. This debate will show that and their weakness in their lack of resolve and ability to fight the war on terror.

This verdict may look like a defeat but its gonna give benefits in spades LOL

[Monica-Philadelphia]

I don't know how this will come out in the end but I do know that it is not over. It's going to be some fun to watch.

[Mike's America]

Amazing that after watching what a ludicrous circus the Moussaoui trial was that there would be anyone in their right mind that would want to see a repeat.

Ooopss.. answered my own question with the bit about anyone "in their right mind" didn't I?

[daytripper]

your government needs terrorism, it has no urge whatsoever to tackle it fully. gitmo is there for your benefit, so that you have a tangible result to point at and go, there are the bad guys. you are willing to take your governments word on that and will happily dispense with due process. afterall they are untermensch.

[Mike's America]

You're such an idiot dateraper.

And I'll take my government's word over that of a willfully deluded socialist defeatist any day of the week.

[Monica-Philadelphia]

But tripper knows better, Mike. He knows so much more than any government or citizen of any country. Tripper has the answers. He's in on the classified material. He knows.

[David Vance]

Monica,

He owns a tinfoil hat, you know! ;-)

[merchant services]

Unfortunately, your locked into a contract and they tell you the new rate is what you would have to pay anywhere else as well.