Not Infallible, Just Final
Today, the Supreme Court has reminded us of the abiding truth of Justice Jackson's words: We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.
Almost unbelievably, it appears that the Court has ruled in favor of Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who has argued that the President lacks the authority to order military tribunals for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and instead that prisoners are entitled to a civilian trial or court martial. Slip opinion is here.
In this regrettable piece of work, the Supreme Court -- with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Kennedy (!!) in the majority -- has effectively found that members of Al Qaeda are, in fact, entitled to some of the protections of the Geneva Convention, a conclusion that, quite frankly, has the potential to undermine the Court's credibility in a major way. (Clarification: Justice Kennedy did not agree with the portion of the majority's holding that radically misread the Geneva Conventions).
Chief Justice Roberts had to recuse himself in the case, as he joined the opinion on the D.C. Circuit that was overturned this morning. That means that without Kennedy's defection, the case would have gone the other way, as a 4-4 tie would have allowed the D.C. Circuit opinion to stand.
Once again, this is a compelling reminder that elections matter and that Supreme Court choice nominations are of infinite importance.
Seems to me that while the Congress is busy voting on resolutions condemning nameless entities, it might be worthwhile for them to weigh in on whether terrorists are entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. And immediately, it needs to legislatively endow the President with the authority to establish and use military tribunals.
In the days after 9/11, who would have dreamed that the third branch and the fourth estate would make it so difficult actually to prosecute the war on terror? Who would dream that the latter would be betraying effective, legal programs that had been successful at catching terrorists -- and that the former would arrogate to itself the power to supply them with a panoply of rights that belong to prisoners of war fighting in uniform, but definitively not to those who, by stealth, move among us and attempt to murder innocent civilians.
Almost unbelievably, it appears that the Court has ruled in favor of Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who has argued that the President lacks the authority to order military tribunals for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and instead that prisoners are entitled to a civilian trial or court martial. Slip opinion is here.
In this regrettable piece of work, the Supreme Court -- with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Kennedy (!!) in the majority -- has effectively found that members of Al Qaeda are, in fact, entitled to some of the protections of the Geneva Convention, a conclusion that, quite frankly, has the potential to undermine the Court's credibility in a major way. (Clarification: Justice Kennedy did not agree with the portion of the majority's holding that radically misread the Geneva Conventions).
Chief Justice Roberts had to recuse himself in the case, as he joined the opinion on the D.C. Circuit that was overturned this morning. That means that without Kennedy's defection, the case would have gone the other way, as a 4-4 tie would have allowed the D.C. Circuit opinion to stand.
Once again, this is a compelling reminder that elections matter and that Supreme Court choice nominations are of infinite importance.
Seems to me that while the Congress is busy voting on resolutions condemning nameless entities, it might be worthwhile for them to weigh in on whether terrorists are entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. And immediately, it needs to legislatively endow the President with the authority to establish and use military tribunals.
In the days after 9/11, who would have dreamed that the third branch and the fourth estate would make it so difficult actually to prosecute the war on terror? Who would dream that the latter would be betraying effective, legal programs that had been successful at catching terrorists -- and that the former would arrogate to itself the power to supply them with a panoply of rights that belong to prisoners of war fighting in uniform, but definitively not to those who, by stealth, move among us and attempt to murder innocent civilians.
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:38 AM
10 Comments:
Great points Carol. The hyper-pussilanimus left wing is leaking into everything. They won't touch the wicked, but they prey on the most weak and innocent.
I wonder?
Perhaps they (SCOTUS) might be right. We need to live the example. In spite of the horror these cretins would cause given the opportunity, we are the "Good Guys". In todays world we cannot simply "Lock them up and throw away the key".
I'm NOT screaming torture or somesuch nonsense, however I do believe that this topic deserves a serious discussion.
However I do have to wonder - Do we now hold our enemy combatents to the UCMJ?
We took them in Afghanistan - send them back to Afghani courts.
It certainly doesn't encourage the military to take prisoners...
Unintended consequences:
This ruling could lead to a 'take no prisoners' approach on the field of battle. If you are not in a uniform, you can be shot as a spy.
I know, Pete. It's so unfair for us to assume Bush lied or that his appalling incompetence contributed to 9/11. The only fair thing to do is to assign an independent prosecutor to find out. Someone completely impartial and without any preconceived notions. Like Ken Starr. HA!
Don't you agree? That way there won't be any more "speculation" as to whether or not Duh-bya is the least qualified person to ever sit in the Oval Office.
WRabkin:
Thanks for the gentle civility with which you attempted to correct my math; apparently, my point was too subtle for you.
I wrote:
Chief Justice Roberts had to recuse himself in the case, as he joined the opinion on the D.C. Circuit that was overturned this morning. That means that without Kennedy's defection, the case would have gone the other way, as a 4-4 tie would have allowed the D.C. Circuit opinion to stand.
In other words, if Kennedy had voted with the conservative (Alito, Scalia, Thomas), there would have been a 4-4 tie. When that happens, the decision of the court below is upheld.
Get it now?
Saucy Carol.
But on many of those points, the SCOTUS, or at least your favorite members, are wrong. How many uniformed Nazi's were tried after being taken prisoner? And wrabkin, how do you know that these "detainees" aren't where they deserve to be considering they were taken off the battlefield? That's what our people and our allies are saying and I choose to believe them. Were any of those Nazi's "charged" with a crime or just taken prisoner and held for the duration? What the hell is wrong with you guys? Why don't you sheath your irrational hatred for Republicans until the war is over and then you can nitpick 'em to death with BS accusations?
For the fomblog,
I don't believe we are failing in our role of "Good Guys" in the manner in which we're conducting this war. The enemy has proven itself to be vicious, hateful, unrelenting and without honor or the desire to listen to reason. It's unfortunate that our only option is to bring the hammer down hard until they can no longer take it and surrender unconditionally. When that time comes, we send the libs to talk nice to them. That way, they'll understand reality as the bad guys then go back on their surrender and get savage.
The first comment in this thread, pertaining to 9/11, the Pentagon and the Supreme Court has been removed.
Frustration with the Supreme Court is certainly understandable. But we are all Americans -- and we should refrain from comments that give an impression that we wish harm on any of our fellow countryman. After all, preventing such harm has been the goal of those of us who believe in fighting the war on terror robustly.
Ditto,
Perhaps you could just send them the dissenting opinions of the smarter justices and those of the knowledgable pundits. I can't say it better than they can. Of course, with all the lefty blatherings, apparently no one's come up with a way to explain it so the left can understand. Smaller words perhaps would help.
Post a Comment
<< Home