SCOTUS Overreaches Again

I know I’m a little late on this one, but I want to put it out there.  In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees should be afforded the same legal rights as an American citizen. Andrew McBride sums up the decision in his WSJ opinion piece.  I’m not a legal expert, but McBride succintly spells out the ramifications of this sorry decision –

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion confuses the civilian criminal justice system and the waging of war. The Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court places many roadblocks in the path of a conviction for a crime, and for the loss of liberty, or even life, that may follow. The guarantee of counsel, the right to subpoena witnesses and confront adverse witnesses in open court, and the suppression of evidence gathered in violation of law, all make sense in the context of domestic law enforcement. To protect liberty, we are willing to sacrifice some efficiency in our criminal justice system. Our motto remains: Let 100 guilty men go free before one innocent man is convicted.

The situation is entirely different when the nation faces an external threat. In fighting an enemy, there is no reason for the judicial branch to “check” the political branches. The idea of our judiciary protecting the “rights” of the Nazis or the Viet Cong from executive overreaching is every bit as absurd as it sounds. But had Boumediene been decided in 1940, more than 400,000 Axis troops held in more than 500 military facilities in this country during World War II would have had a right to challenge their detention in federal court.

As you might have guessed, this decision was made by the liberal wing of the Court joined by Anthony Kennedy (who authored the majority opinion).  I’ll keep posting this stuff to remind people about the stakes of the next election.  If Obama is elected, we can only expect more of these types of irrational, misguided decisions.

 

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “SCOTUS Overreaches Again

  1. When you are at war the point is to neutralize (or better yet – kill) the enemy, not coddle him. Justice Kennedy obviously cannot fathom that simple premise. Establishing justice and providing for the Common Defense are two separate goals.

  2. Sick. This makes me sick to my stomach.

    What kills me is that liberals will often balk at the thought of the US spreading democracy over the world (“you can’t force it” they say).

    Well, now we don’t have to. Just become a terrorist and then we’ll hand you democracy on a silver platter. Oh, and it’ll be at OUR expense. Literally, we’ll fund your democracy right here in our country.

    And you’re right on about Obama- this Supreme Court decision is just the appetizer on the Obama As President menu.

  3. From the road here but jessica pretty much summed it all up. We really will have to be attacked again and let it hit hollywood or san francisco before liberals start truly loving this country and support protecting it.

  4. From the road here but jessica pretty much summed it all up. We really will have to be attacked again and let it hit hollywood or san francisco before liberals start truly loving this country and support protecting it.

  5. I heard Anthony Kennedy referred to yesterday as vacuous. I think that about sums up my feelings…

  6. I just hope Mr. Kennedy comes down on the correct side of the DC gun case when the decision is released. I’m still mad at George HW for giving us David Souter. What a waste.

  7. You are all missing one GIANT Fact. This directly affects myself and everyone else in the Armed Forces (something most of you know nothing about).

    What we are doing to the detainees at Guantanamo is ILLEGAL as per the Geneva Conventions. During WWII we did not torture (yes Waterboarding is torture, try it yourself and tell me otherwise.) maim, or other antagonize our P.O.W’s.

    Conservatives try to argue that the terrorists have no Geneva Convention status, and while that may technically be true, it is also technically true that the U.S Soldiers and Marines in Iraq do not have Geneva convention status, since it is an illegal War.

    This has far more reaching implications than any of you know. Imagine if during a War with China, China begins systematically raping all Male and Female POW’s? Torturing all they capture? Killing Civilians with disregard? Targeting Red Cross and Medical facilities?

    These are the realities of War, and “Conservatives” like John McCain try to think that Its still a good old boy country, and that we’re on top in the World. Newsflash : Travel to another country, no one gives a shit about the U.S. Especially since we’re harboring War Criminals (Bush) who are guilty for the deaths of over 100 thousand Iraqi civilians.

  8. Jarlath, you apparently have not been reading long enough.

    AFW is a regular commenter on this blog and has a husband who has indeed served his country and continues to do so year after year.

    The Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed military members. They do not apply to non-military fighters – particulary when those fighters wants Americans dead, got it?

    Go to the US Department of Defense and pull up their list of top guys at Guantanamo. Then read their history and connections with Al-Queda, then tell me that waterboarding – a technique tried by every newsreporter at Fox, CNN, and ABC news, comes close to the repugnant acts these people have contributed to.

    Finally, I can’t verify factually what you have done militarily. But to use that as an excuse to argue for surrender in Iraq or to falsely label your President as a “war criminal” without enough evidence to support that fact to even get it past Judge Judy is indeed a sick sin.

    And if you making this up in order to grant credibility to your “Code Pink-like” rant, all I can say is God Have Mercy on your soul.

    Come back with some facts for once.

  9. By the way – making it more difficult for the FBI or the CIA to gain confessions from these animals only means more strife for our wonderful military down the road.

    Apparently, you didn’t keep many friends there otherwise your regard would be for them – and not terrorists responsible for why they are there in the first place.

    (And if you’re going to come back implying that the only terrorist is Bush, then you really will be revealing yourself and your lies for all to see.)

  10. The flaw in McBride’s reasoning is that counter-terrorism is not analogous to WWII. Not even close. As much as people want to use the “we’re at war” line, technically we’re not in the historical sense.

  11. This has far more reaching implications than any of you know. Imagine if during a War with China, China begins systematically raping all Male and Female POW’s? Torturing all they capture? Killing Civilians with disregard? Targeting Red Cross and Medical facilities?

    Can you not drink the cool aid, please? This crap is ALREADY happening. You think that the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, or anywhere else, are following Geneva? Then you’re sadly misinformed.

    You may have another reason for siding with SCOTUS on this, but don’t use that one. That dog not only won’t hunt, but prefers carrot sticks to steak.

    You know what I think? Send the terrorists back to their home countries.

    Oh, wait… They don’t want to go… Wonder why. Must be because their home countries are such sticklers for Geneva.

  12. I have to decent here a little bit, Nazis were determined to be POWs who had Geneva Convention protections from the 1929 Geneva Convention. Here we have created a whole new class of prisoner. Personally, I think they should be deemed POWs and held until an official end of the “war” can be determined, which would indicate a life sentence to me. But the idea of putting them in limbo doesn’t sit well with me. This situation can be made black and white, instead, we created a situation where you forced the Supreme court to make a ruling. Simplified, I’m not surprised when we could have made it real simple and just called them POWs instead of a new classification of enemy combatants. Even if they are “evil” they still are human beings that deserve either Geneva Convention protection or due process. If not, then are we really any better than those who wish to do harm? America has high standards and civil liberty protections because we are or should be the envy of the modern world. If we fail those principles, then we fail America as well.

  13. Ferg, you make a very interesting point. I agree with you 100% that we should have handled them differently from the start. Not sunshine and lollipops differently, but “I’m closing all the loopholes” differently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s