Legal jihad, from Henry Mark Holzer at FrontPage.
First, from the editor's note:
The article below by Henry Mark Holzer discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision to give constitutional protection to foreign "enemy combatants." This development, which epitomizes activist judges "legislating from the bench," overwrites decades of precedents and undermines the country's ability to fight the War on Terror. Meanwhile, terrorists and their radical America-hating lawyers are lining up to find and exploit loopholes in the rulings that may ultimately set a large number of criminals and murderers free -- and a large number of Americans to their graves.The advocates of these terrorists come mainly from two leftist organizations with a long history of defending the dregs of American (and now Islamic) society: the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the National Lawyers Guild (NLG). These groups have teamed up to challenge the rights of America to defend our jihadist enemies.
The CCR, which was founded by radical leftist attorneys William Kuntsler and Arthur Kinoy, has a long record of defending and identifying with our enemies. Like the CCR, the NLG never met an anti-American, anti-capitalist, or anti-Semite it didn't like. Both, for instance, stand firmly behind accused terrorist and former University of South Florida professor, Sami Al-Arian, who awaits trial for providing material aid to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
The NLG is at the forefront of fighting on behalf of Guantanamo terrorist prisoners. It actively opposes legislation designed to prevent terror attacks, supports other terrorist groups like the Basque Separatists, and routinely passes out literature in Arabic to immigrants and visitors so they can "know their rights" with respect to U.S. investigators. "Talking to the FBI or other agents can be dangerous," says one NLG pamphlet.
The most notorious terrorist advocate currently is NLG member Lynne Stewart, who is now on trial herself for aiding and abetting the terrorist leader Omar Abdel Rahman. Stewart is a self-proclaimed champion of terrorism and an avowed Communist whose heroes include Lenin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. Rahman's followers perpetrated the first World Trade Center bombing and had planned other attacks on NYC. While acting as his lawyer, Stewart disseminated instructions to Rahman's followers....
And from Holzer:
Rumsfeld v. Padilla. An American citizen, Jose Padilla (the so-called “dirty bomber”) was arrested in Chicago, brought to New York, later designated an “enemy combatant,” and given into military custody in South Carolina. Assigned counsel sought habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (in Manhattan), challenging Padilla’s detention.In a narrow technical decision, the Supreme Court held that Padilla’s lawyer had sued in the wrong jurisdiction. Since the “immediate custodian” who had control of enemy combatant Padilla was the warden of the naval brig in South Carolina, that jurisdiction, not New York, was where the alleged dirty bomber’s case belonged. Accordingly, the Supreme Court told Padilla that if he wanted to challenge the detention, he would have to re-file his case in the South Carolina federal court. Thus, Padilla decided nothing substantive—the case only further defined the statutory meaning of “immediate custodian.” (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer were prepared, knowingly, to misinterpret the habeas corpus statute and reach the merits because Padilla’s claims, apparently unlike the plain meaning of a venerable federal statute, were “important”)....
There follow details of other important cases. Read it all.
To paraphrase Godfather Don Corleone: Radical lawyers with word processors can do more harm than 100 terrorists with machine guns.
These kind of idiotic PC laws and undermining interference from human rights activists are exactly the kind of thing the west should be ridding itself of. The terrorists are exploiting it and at the same time laughing at us, in the full knowledge that hostages taken by islamic insurgents would not be given even a minute fraction of this kind of mercy.
Whats the point in our troops running through killing fields to apprehend terrorists when they are just being freed because of ridiculous loopholes?
There is a simple solution to all of this though , for our troops out on the front line, seemingly risking their necks for nothing :
TAKE NO PRISONERS!!!
I really hope ; that after the muslims finally stike in their next phase of the conquest of America and Europe that these leftist organizations are tried for aiding and abetting Terrorists; in the years after the resulting western victory.
Maybe we should take a leaf out of the Enemy's book and 'MAKE WAR ON THEM UNTIL NO TEMPTATION REMAINS.'Personally feel all Gitmo prisoners should be tattooed on their wrists for future identification as don't doubt they'll be outside to kill again.Unfortunately sanity won't prevail until there is another attack.
When are our "leaders" going to wake up and realize it is us or them? Our "leaders" keep telling us this is a religion of peace and then these kinds of statments are issued.
We started with the wrong country. We should have started with the kitty litter box, SA. Stop the money and a lot of it would stop
What is happening in the USA.?
Where is the outrage? Where is the sense of morality?
19 Islamic bastards hijack four civilian planes, fly them into the World Trade
Centre, the Pentagon and the ground – all the time praising their false and monstrous Allah and killing thousands of innocent men women and children. At the same time, there is celebration and dancing in the streets of Muslim countries and nary a peep from “moderate Islam” (if in fact moderate Islam even exist.)
US Sailors are blown up on the Cole by the Muslim assassins and countless other wars are waged and atrocities are committed in the name Islam.
More than a 1,000 US soldiers die at the hands of ungrateful morons too stupid to realize that there could be huge improvements in their lives, if they were to exert a little bit of effort to cooperate, try a peaceful solution and listen a whole lot less to the crusty, narrow-minded and uneducated fools that teach them hate under a religious cloak.
On a world stage, the US is mocked while the terrorists gain converts by indiscriminately creating havoc.
And now, not even three years after 9/11, the left in the U.S. is worried about being politically correct and Bush on the right is quoted as saying that Islam is a “Religion of Peace”?
FOUR THOUSAND U. S. CITIZENS WERE ROASTED OR CRUSHED in the twin Towers or killed in action and the U.S. is afraid of insulting the cult of Islam!!!?
Why does the US feel the need to Michael Moore itself into inaction when there is no such introspection on the part of Islam?
What does Islam have to do to let us know it has declared war on democracy, tolerance, women, civility, morality, culture, music and everything else in the world that is good and matters?
Let’s not pretend anymore – let’s abandon political correctness in this situation, we cannot afford to be paralyzed into inaction. Let’s recognize that Islam is a cult of death and call a spade a spade. The monster is Islam.
Let’s not second guess ourselves. We need strong decisive leadership prepared to take the monster by the horns and make it kneel.
We may make mistakes but at this stage, we should be much more concerned about eliminating the cancer than insulting the disease.
Toro
"This development, which epitomizes activist judges "legislating from the bench," overwrites decades of precedents and undermines the country's ability to fight the War on Terror. Misinterpreted habeas corpus..."
Activist judges? Oh like the Founding Fathers! I take it this author is discussing revising or eliminating the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the Constitution. I wonder why they never complain about the 2nd? Someone needs to remind right-wingers there are 9 other amendments to the Bill of Rights. Following the Bill of Rights is not an option, to do only when it suits us, it's an obligation.
If we become like the enemy, why bother continuing the war.
Henry Mark Holzer is not just another lawyer. We have known him (slightly) ever since the Viet Nam war. He specialized in Constitutional Law way back when, and deserves to be widely heard.
He will never let us down.
Maybe we should recap about another lawyer who spent her time "defending" terrorists, who is in fact a sympathiser terrorist and a terrorist associate...her name is Lynn Stewart and she is on trial for aiding the very terrorists she was charged with defending against the "repressive Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft axis of evil", the full story is available here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62498-2004Jun22.html
Also, if you don't believe the mainstream media (as some Jihaddi apologists do not) visit www.cryptome.org you can find the full text of court documents from each day's proceedings.
Rikki's "take no prisoners" approach is going to be the new unspoken rule, I'm afraid.
This is a classic case of thinking inside the box, and not acknowledging the world outside their courtroom.
In practice, it will go something like this:
A 20-year old American soldier is on a patrol in a foreign city. His unit comes under fire in an ambush sprung too early, and they withdraw and redeploy, flanking the enemy position. He hears the sound of an RPK light machinegun being fired (yes, you can distingush certain firearms by their sound), and kicks in the door.
A "civilian" whirls from his window firing position, dropping his weapon and raising his hands in the air in surrender. The barrel of the RPK is still smoking, and shell casings litter the floor. The young American soldier has a choice.
Under the old rules, he could take this man prisoner, secure his weapon, and ship him out. He turns over the prisoner to MPs, who would no longer be his responsibility.
Under the new rules, he can take this man prisoner. He will then have to write out and sign an affidavit to hand over to a military lawyer. The new rules will require that the soldier will be required to leave his unit in a combat zone, and testify, under oath, as to how he came in possesion of the prisoner, while the prisoner's defense attorney tries to destroy his credibility. He will have to leave his fellow soldiers for any trial or appeal that the prisoner has, jeopardizing his unit everytime he leaves.
He will have to do this for every prisoner he takes, pulling him away from his unit, putting his fellow soldiers at risk every time he isn't there to watch their backs. He worries that every time he has to leave a friend might die, a friend he might be able to protect if he is there.
The other choice is almost an afterthought.
The simple, routine tightening of a single finger dispenses unequivical, final, justice. There will be no appeals. No testimony. No time away from the unit that is closer to him that his own family will ever understand. He does the "right thing," and he gets to stay with, and protect, and fight with, his brothers. This enemy won't have some slick lawyer put his back out there to try to kill his brothers again.
YOU are this soldier. Which option do you choose?
The courts are supposed to uphold the law, not create it. This dangerous practice must be stopped. We don't want leftist lawyers and judges making the laws of the land, which sadly, is whats happening. Our Government forms the law and it's intent. The courts are only supposed to uphold them, not re- invent them.
A country is only as just as it treats the most despised of our society. By providing the detainees their day in Court America is continuing a two century old tradition of insuring JUSTICE FOR ALL. The "ALL" doesn't just mean the people we like. It means everyone.
The fact is that some of the detainees are not guilty. They should be given an opportunity to explain their side of the story. Some of them will be released and RIGHTFULLY SO! Why should the USA keep holding those detainees that are not terrorist? Keep the bad guys and let the others go free. My gosh, what is so bad about that?
If America fails to be a nation of laws and justice it becomes no better than a dictatorship.
Clyde,
It's highly unlikely ,that an radical islamist arrested on the battle grounds of Iraq by our soldiers , whose job it is to seek and kill/capture enemis (the former is preferable) is going to be innocent now is it? The only reason they are getting freed is because they have been trained how to use western laws to their advantage upon being taken prisoner.What do you think they learn in these terrorist training camps?They have the info they imperitively need drilled into their brains daily.
"And how do they learn about our laws?" I hear you ask. The same way they nfind everything else they need to know about America and Europe, from the spies they have among us (thats asylum seekers to you Clyde). You know the immigrants who come over here illiterate, then go back to Arabia 10 years later with a degree in Law, Chemistry (handy for making chemical weapons), or possibly a 15 year stint training to be in the SAS, Navy SEALS or the US/royal Air force before either staying with them then sabataging our guys/girls at a vital moment. They don't have to worry about capture as that weasal Cpt. Hassoun has proven.
Do some research Clyde and then come back here and challenge us.
Sorry folks I'm on the Library CPU and we get a set time limit, and I almost got cut off before I'd posted my last comment, the one to CLYDE (wanted to get your attention again )above posted by Rikki @7:38am US time. I rushed it and didn't finish off that 2nd to last sentence.What I meant to type was : muslim immigrants in the US and UK join Western fighting forces, train for however many years it takes someone to become the perfect killing machine ,then either sabotage our troops,or desert and go back to their beloved deserts to teach terrorists how to fight like us.
PS- Robert Spencer
You really ought to give us the option of being able to edit, delete or re-type our posts , it's so frustrating when you feel like you've expressed important issues, but are worried your points will not be understood because of mistakes or bad punctuation.
Also does anyone else have the problem of typing quite a long comment, clicking on the post button , only to be told that "you are not currently signed in" which mostly results in the comment being lost. Sometimes though after several attempts , it finally grants you the mercy of not having to start all over again. Surely this shouldn't be allowed to continue...
Please Robert try and deal with it.
cubed:
Sorry cubed but Holzer is merely an opportunist, his alleged knowledge of Constitutional law not withstanding.
Back in the 1960's he was Ayn Rand's lawyer. She was totally opposed to conscription and Holzer, using Rand's fame to gain clients, brought a case against military conscription based on the Ninth Amendment and an original interpretation of Griswold vs. Connecticut. He has since denounced Griswold as "legislating from the bench", in fact he acts as though every decision that he doesn't like is legislating from the bench.
Furthermore, it is ridiculous to say that demanding the government enforce the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is really a demand for judicial "legislation". The Constitution, as Scalia observed, was not written exclusively for peaceful times; the Founders were fully aware that the US would get involved in wars and there are no, repeat no wartime exceptions to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
The status of enemy combatant does not exist in the Constitution and comes from international treaties, primarily the Geneva Convention. Under the convention, legal combatants (soldiers captured in battle wearing uniforms identifying them as soldiers) can be held until the cessation of hostilities, however, that rule only applies to nation-states, not criminal gangs such as Al-Qaeda. Under the convention, legal combatants can be held but not tried as criminals. In fact, the status of legal combatant was created for just that purpose, to prevent the trial of soldiers as criminals.
Illegal combatants are carefully defined as members of the armed forces of a nation state that are captured behind their enemy's lines with no identification. They can be tried as criminals or even be summarily executed as spies by military tribunals.
For Bush and Ashcroft to claim the status of "enemy combatant" for Al Qaeda member they would have to recognize Al-Qaeda as a government - a government without a governed populace, without a governed territory and without any structure. If this is so than the Mafia and the Crips are governments! Should they too be summarily executed as illegal combatants?
"The President says you are the enemy so you have no legal rights whatsoever" is not, and never has been a definition of any kind of combatant.
Refusing to pretend that such a status exists is not legislating from the bench, it is, in fact upholding and defending the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic.