Supreme Court Decision on Military Tribunals No Cause for Celebration
Jim Kouri, CPP
June 30, 2006
Thursday may have been a dark day for those charged with fighting terrorism both here and abroad, but for many Democrats and the news media it was a day of celebration when five black-robed lawyers sitting on the US Supreme Court decided to handcuff the Commander-in-Chief in his obligation to protect the American people.
Just as the Warren Court hampered law enforcement in the 1960s that resulted in enormous increases in crime, so too is the current Supreme Court hampering asymmetrical warfare.
The decidedly liberal Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals to try suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp are illegal. The damage went even further when the court ruled that the Geneva Conventions applied to those terrorists who are captured by the US military.
Of course, anyone who knows anything about the Geneva Conventions knows that terrorists are not mentioned in any of its provisions. Actually, the Conventions stipulate several requirements before a person or persons are entitled to lay claim to the Geneva protections. For instance, the combatant must be wearing a uniform or insignia that is visible and recognizable from a distance; the combatant weapons must be openly displayed; and the combatant must be from a nation-state.
There are other provisions as well, but it's not my purpose to dissect the Court's decision, but to observe the reaction of those clearly ready to pop open bottles of champagne.
The ruling was reached by a 5-3 vote after the so-called moderate, Kennedy, joined the court's more left-wing members in siding against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, recused himself because as an appeals court judge he had previously backed the government in this same case.
The court's decision means that detainees will have to be granted the increased rights of prisoners-of-war, something the Bush administration has always opposed since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. He had good reasons. To put these terrorists on trial in civilian courts or open sessions of military commissions opens he door for classified information to be disseminated to the world including the terrorists.
Leftist lawyers, who hoodwinked their way into the federal court system, will be deciding what information will be allowed in open court and what will be done in private sessions. However, slip-and-fall lawyers representing the terrorists will have access to military and/or intelligence agency secrets.
Both the Bush Administration and its critics acknowledged that while the ruling was a huge blow to a central part of America's anti-terror strategy, it did not require the immediate closure of the Guantanamo prison. The Democrats seemed a bit disappointed when they heard that part.
The Supreme Court ruling brought smiles to the face of the detainees' relatives and the groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and so-called human rights organizations.
While the Democrat lawmakers made the rounds of the news shows gloating over their empty victory. President Bush reminded them that: "The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the streets," he said.
The President also vowed that the Guantanamo detainees would not be freed. His response infuriated the terrorists' allies -- lawyers, Democrats and news media -- who want prisoners treated like normal criminal defendants. I used to laugh that the way things are going in this war, soldiers will be running around the battlefields giving terrorists and their associates Miranda warnings. Perhaps we can have the courts appoint defense lawyers to travel into war zones to make sure terrorists' rights are protected. Sure, some lawyers will be killed, but isn't protecting the rights of terrorists important?
Many hailed Thursday's ruling as a major victory. But if it was a defeat for Bush and for Americans, then it must be a victory for left-wing politicians and reporters from the New York Times, since the court's decision aids terrorists.
For instance, Zachary Katznelson, a lawyer who represents 36 inmates, said, "I think it's a fantastic victory for us. It's a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court to President Bush."
Amnesty International said, "The US administration should ensure that those held in Guantanamo should be either released or brought before civilian courts on the US mainland."
Senator Edward Kennedy said the verdict was a "stunning repudiation" for Mr. Bush. "The Supreme Court has reminded the president and [defense] secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law even when our country is at war."
The Supreme Court case was the result of an appeal by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni, who has admitted to being Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard. He faced a single count of conspiring against American citizens. And the Democrats are celebrating his victory?
Taken together with the previous Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo inmates must have access to attorneys, Thursday's decision makes fighting a war on terrorism much more difficult for the Bush Administration and for those in command positions.
Just as the Warren Court hampered law enforcement in the 1960s that resulted in enormous increases in crime, so too is the current Supreme Court hampering asymmetrical warfare.
The decidedly liberal Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals to try suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp are illegal. The damage went even further when the court ruled that the Geneva Conventions applied to those terrorists who are captured by the US military.
Of course, anyone who knows anything about the Geneva Conventions knows that terrorists are not mentioned in any of its provisions. Actually, the Conventions stipulate several requirements before a person or persons are entitled to lay claim to the Geneva protections. For instance, the combatant must be wearing a uniform or insignia that is visible and recognizable from a distance; the combatant weapons must be openly displayed; and the combatant must be from a nation-state.
There are other provisions as well, but it's not my purpose to dissect the Court's decision, but to observe the reaction of those clearly ready to pop open bottles of champagne.
The ruling was reached by a 5-3 vote after the so-called moderate, Kennedy, joined the court's more left-wing members in siding against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, recused himself because as an appeals court judge he had previously backed the government in this same case.
The court's decision means that detainees will have to be granted the increased rights of prisoners-of-war, something the Bush administration has always opposed since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. He had good reasons. To put these terrorists on trial in civilian courts or open sessions of military commissions opens he door for classified information to be disseminated to the world including the terrorists.
Leftist lawyers, who hoodwinked their way into the federal court system, will be deciding what information will be allowed in open court and what will be done in private sessions. However, slip-and-fall lawyers representing the terrorists will have access to military and/or intelligence agency secrets.
Both the Bush Administration and its critics acknowledged that while the ruling was a huge blow to a central part of America's anti-terror strategy, it did not require the immediate closure of the Guantanamo prison. The Democrats seemed a bit disappointed when they heard that part.
The Supreme Court ruling brought smiles to the face of the detainees' relatives and the groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and so-called human rights organizations.
While the Democrat lawmakers made the rounds of the news shows gloating over their empty victory. President Bush reminded them that: "The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the streets," he said.
The President also vowed that the Guantanamo detainees would not be freed. His response infuriated the terrorists' allies -- lawyers, Democrats and news media -- who want prisoners treated like normal criminal defendants. I used to laugh that the way things are going in this war, soldiers will be running around the battlefields giving terrorists and their associates Miranda warnings. Perhaps we can have the courts appoint defense lawyers to travel into war zones to make sure terrorists' rights are protected. Sure, some lawyers will be killed, but isn't protecting the rights of terrorists important?
Many hailed Thursday's ruling as a major victory. But if it was a defeat for Bush and for Americans, then it must be a victory for left-wing politicians and reporters from the New York Times, since the court's decision aids terrorists.
For instance, Zachary Katznelson, a lawyer who represents 36 inmates, said, "I think it's a fantastic victory for us. It's a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court to President Bush."
Amnesty International said, "The US administration should ensure that those held in Guantanamo should be either released or brought before civilian courts on the US mainland."
Senator Edward Kennedy said the verdict was a "stunning repudiation" for Mr. Bush. "The Supreme Court has reminded the president and [defense] secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law even when our country is at war."
The Supreme Court case was the result of an appeal by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni, who has admitted to being Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard. He faced a single count of conspiring against American citizens. And the Democrats are celebrating his victory?
Taken together with the previous Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo inmates must have access to attorneys, Thursday's decision makes fighting a war on terrorism much more difficult for the Bush Administration and for those in command positions.
Print
Email
