| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
And it will resurrect and create a plethora of judicial jihad cases that will tie up thousands of hours and millions of dollars. What is this about violating the Constitutional rights of people who are not American citizens? Apparently the U.S. Constitution applies to everyone in the world now. "High Court ruling may delay war crimes trials," by Mark Sherman for Associated Press, June 12 (thanks to all who sent this in):
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the constitutional rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.
President Bush was unhappy with the ruling. "We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it," the president said during a press conference in Rome. "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented."
Bush also said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"
It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.
The ruling could resurrect many detainee lawsuits that federal judges in Washington put on hold pending the outcome of the high court case. The decision sent judges, law clerks and court administrators scrambling to read Kennedy's 70-page opinion and figure out how to proceed. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases....
The lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, said he will seek dismissal of the charges against Hamdan based on Thursday's ruling. A military judge had already delayed the trial's start to await the high court ruling....
In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.
Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
Posted by Robert at June 12, 2008 3:33 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
This is one of the most sickening decisions that I've seen in a very long time.
The legislative branch of the US government had better pass some very clear legislation on this matter in order to remove any ambiguity on the applicability of constitutional rights. But I'm frankly not very optimistic that this will occur soon.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 12, 2008 3:50 PM
Therefore, enemy combatants captured and kept on non-US soil have US constitutional rights. But, US allies fighting beside US soldiers on non-US soil do not have US constitutional rights. Thus, our allies need to turn their guns on US soldiers to gain US constitutional rights. Thanks you US Supreme Court.
Posted by: Rick at June 12, 2008 3:58 PM
I think the president ought to ignore this screw-citizen-welfare, lawyer enriching, and liberal-idiot ruling while going all out for a constitutional amendment, which might help the republicans during elections. In the mean time the military needs to stop taking prisoners like they use to. Perhaps the military needs to treat captured enemy combatants like a smart farmer treats the discovery of an engendered species on his land: shoot, shovel and shut up.
Posted by: FM at June 12, 2008 4:06 PM
If we brought them onto US soil, then yes, the Constitution applies to them as well.
It was the same in WWII when German and Italian POWs were held in the US.
The very existence of the prison at Gitmo is a disgrace. This has NOTHING to do with the conditions under which they are held. There are millions of people in the world who would beg to be held in such "inhumane conditions". It is about who and what we are as a nation. We're supposed to be the Good Guys, dammit! The "White Hats." And the Good Guys don't grab foreign nationals and hold them for years without charges or a trial.
Either charge them and try them, or let them go. If we don't have enough respect for our own system of laws to abide by them, then why would be expect anyone else to respect them?
at June 12, 2008 4:12 PM
Five self-annointed elites - have eliminated any and all distinctions between combatants and civilians, by declaring it to be U.S. law, that these enemy-islamic-jihadi combatants are considered equal to all civilians (U.S. or any other nationality - as none of the enemy are U.S. civilians).
In short - these 5 judges - have declared the enemy-islamic-jihadi - equivalent to any and all U.S. civilians.
U.S. military, bound by a combination of much stricter U.S., U.S. military, and international laws - none of which affords them the rights that have just been handed to the enemy-islamic-jihadi-muslims. The enemy-muslims-jihadis are not held to any international codes (e.g. Geneva Convention) but now will recieve - thanks to these 5 elites- more rights than every single U.S. military person as well as any other "legal" combatant.
Therefore, no longer, from this point on, can there be any distintion claimed when innocent civilians are attacked, wounded, killed by the activities of the islamic-jihadi enemies.
Thanks to these 5 elites, we are all now legitimate targets for any combat activities as there are no legal distinctions between the civilian and the enemy-islamic-jihadi.
at June 12, 2008 4:19 PM
"Apparently the U.S. Constitution applies to everyone in the world now" from the commentary above.
I believe from my reading of the US Constitution, and some other works such as the "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" that the US Constitution applies to all people within USA or in the control or care, of US Authority.
Over to you Hugh.
Posted by: payingattention at June 12, 2008 4:20 PM
The only thing I tread lightly concerning Gitmo is making sure who is held there is truly a enemy combatant and not some mistake. Other than that we are at war and P.O.Ws should not see the gate until this war is over. Since when do we release enemy soldiers during war only to return to try to kill American soldiers again.
To even discuss this reveals the sad state this nation has spiraled down to because of bleeding heart liberal ideology.
Posted by: SoteriA at June 12, 2008 4:22 PM
This ruling sets up a 'jobs program' for trial lawyers (as if they need one)
Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at June 12, 2008 4:29 PM
Well, there's only one course of action.
Return to the rules of war. Take no prisoners.
Enemy combatants not wearing a military uniform will be summarily shot as spies.
at June 12, 2008 4:34 PM
Why does the Left have to provide Constitutional Rights to all those that would take our lives, but at the same time the Left wants to start taking away the Constitutional Rights that protect us Americans and keep us safe.
Did someone on the Left forget that they are EMPLOYED by the American people?
Posted by: alaskan1000 at June 12, 2008 4:54 PM
Any prisoners in U.S. hands should enjoy the protection of U.S. and international law. Even so-called "unlawful combatants" should enjoy hearings before an impartial tribunal if suspected of war crimes (not a fishy U.S. military tribunal), and should never have been tortured, abused or harassed to produce confessions, genuine or fake.
Actual terrorists deserve no less mercy and due process than rapists, serial killers and child molesters. That goes for Muslims too.
Posted by: sceptico at June 12, 2008 5:06 PM
Greetings:
I wonder how many infantrymen there are on the Supreme Court.
Posted by: 11B40 at June 12, 2008 5:28 PM
simple solution as have others have posted!
Return to the rules of war. Take no prisoners.
Enemy combatants not wearing a military uniform will be summarily shot as spies.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
at June 12, 2008 5:58 PM
I don't understand why ANYONE would disagree with this. We are a free society. In a free society, there's going to be danger. Is your rationale, "Well, we better take away the free society part, so we'll be safe,"?
As much as I hate buzzwords like this, the suspension of habeas corpus is fascist in its essence. People were held in Gitmo for 5+ years without even being told why they were there or given an opportunity for a judge to rule their case. Why should the American government not be expected to follow the rules that it enforces?
Posted by: hmbeast at June 12, 2008 6:20 PM
A couple of articles of interest from the Truth For Muslims website.
The Role of the Mosque in Society
at June 12, 2008 6:27 PM
give me doughnuts wrote:
"Either charge them and try them, or let them go. If we don't have enough respect for our own system of laws to abide by them, then why would be expect anyone else to respect them?"
I gotta agree. The USA can't just hold prisoners indefinitely without charge.
It ain't right!
Posted by: Mo Foe at June 12, 2008 6:44 PM
Either charge them and try them, or let them go. If we don't have enough respect for our own system of laws to abide by them, then why would be expect anyone else to respect them?Posted by: give me doughnuts
Your forgot one act of justice that is just as valid as the three you mentioned. "SHOOT THEM" This would be the cheapest, best and safest solution. In war the trial and execution occurs almost at once. There are not opening arguments or rebuttals or closing argument. The verdict was made on 9/11 by the enemy. Letting them go is the last thing we should do.
Your sanctimoniousness drivel about 'Good Guys' is misplaced. We have been more than Good Guys in the treatment they have received so far. They probably would be dead if we did not have them. You are sadly wrong in characterizing them as 'foreign nationals'. That is like calling pedophilia someone who like kids. And if on the slim chance that anyone of them is innocent, well that's the breaks in WAR
Now, I hope I have either insulted or convinced you of you error, THINK ABOUT IT.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at June 12, 2008 6:47 PM
Just to echo others, enemy combatants who are not part of a formal command structure under the control of any nation; who do not wear uniforms; who store and fire their weapons from inside schools/mosques/hospitals and who use civilians as shields; who torture and kill POW's; who torture and kill unarmed civilians; who use children and mentally disabled as soldiers...
...and who are not U.S. citizens and who are captured in non-U.S. territory while attacking U.S. troops...
...ARE NOT subject to protection of the U.S. Constitution, nor of the Geneva Convention. Even if one accepts the concept of "International Law", there is nothing to stop the summary execution of these "youths", except our own misguided sense of compassion.
We should not take them prisoner, we should not offer them the protection of our legal system.
We also should not get involved (in the first place) in nation-building in nations who wish to destroy us. We should not wage war unless we are willing to wage war.
So many mistakes compacted into so few years.
Posted by: special_guest at June 12, 2008 6:53 PM
Sabotage and treason. Jihad of the shysters.
'What is this about violating the Constitutional rights of people who are not American citizens? Apparently the U.S. Constitution applies to everyone in the world now.'
Gitmo creeps have no Constitutional rights. They are alive only because of the humanity and the generosity of US troops who don't apply the rules of war and execute them when they catch these killers on the battlefield.
Gitmo was the best idea the Bush administration ever had. Where did it go wrong? When Amnesia Intentional and the lefty loons discovered their heart for jihad apes?
The judiciary on the side of Islamic terrorists. Or int their pocket? Follow the money!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 12, 2008 7:36 PM
A Commander-in-Chief with a little gumption would arrest the appropriate members of the Supreme Court (for intruding upon his war powers) and hold them in federal prison for the duration of the conflict. One explanation for this ruling is that the president has been unwilling to defend either himself or his administration from virtually any insult throughout his term. Hell, he doesn't even allow our military to defend itself from Iranian attacks.
President Bush is a pathete (pathete - n, one who is pathetic).
Posted by: HotSpur at June 12, 2008 7:45 PM
Under the laws of war unlawful combatants can be summarily executed on the battlefield. So as Rush Limbaugh pointed out one of the unintended consequences of this ruling is that Jihadis will be executed rather then taken prisoner.BTW- Most Jihadis are executed on the battlefield except by the US military. POW camps were a humane solution that would allow a teenage draftee (a lawful combatants) not guilty of war crimes to return to his life at the end of a war with a clean slate and a fresh start.POW status was never intended for Jihadi filth that attack civilians while hiding among them.
This ruling does not surprise me as liberals have systematically destroyed this country. The majority in the court had to ignore previous precedent in order to create right for this filth.Do you think an unintended consequence of this ruling will be more or less respect for the law? As Sen Graham said what do you think the average American will say when he finds out terrorists enjoy more rights then Nazis?
Posted by: Roxane at June 12, 2008 7:59 PM
Actually, Gitmo was a terrible idea from the get go. It exists only because the President doesn't have the stomach to execute captured terrorists in the field.
Further, the idea that any terrorist possesses useful intelligence information years after his capture is absurd. Gitmo exists because the President is terribly, terribly weak.
Posted by: HotSpur at June 12, 2008 8:05 PM
If we take away their right to a fair trial it won't be long until our right to a free trial is taken away.
If we take away their right to due process, it won't be long until our right to due process is taken away.
If we take away their right to free speech it won't be long until our right to free speech is taken away.
Then we will have nothing, just like those countries and groups that are trying to destroy us.
Posted by: madijihadi at June 12, 2008 8:14 PM
Liberal/Leftist/Loonies first turned the U.S. Constitution into a death warrant for the unborn and they are now on a fast track turning it into a suicide pact for the rest of us.
Posted by: Theseus at June 12, 2008 8:18 PM
madijihadi, you must remember the US Constitution is for Americans. these lowlifes were not wearing any uniform from any country, and taken in the battlefield while attacking the US military. They could be executed on the field. if it were reverse the captures US military person would be tortured and then killed. we in the WEst are more humane, would take one bullet to let them see their allah. but the liberals are really looney and want to give these terrorists American rights from the US constitution. Bush is too soft on this, and penalizes the US military with too many rules in engagement.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at June 12, 2008 8:22 PM
The whole point of POW status was to discourage combatants from hiding among civilians thus protecting civilian lives.Jihadis respect no law except Allah's law which is why thousands of Muslim civilians have died at their hands in places like Iraq and Pakistan. POW status allows for humane treatment of soldiers many of them teenage draftees who have committed no war crimes.POW are removed from the battlefield, treated humanely then allowed to return to their live as usual after the war.
My rights are not protected in any way by allowing a Jihadi terrorist more rights then a lawful combatant in Hitlers army.What incentive is there to conduct oneself lawfully vs unlawfully during a time of war if the same rules apply to both?This ruling will not be good for anyone as leftys and Muslims will eventually find out.The mistake was allowing unlawful combatants to live rather then summarily executing them on the battlefield.Why do you think that you do not hear about Gitmo type prisons anywhere else in the world? It's because Jihadis are summarily executed rather then being taken prisoner by other armies and its legal.The practice of executing them started when they would pretend to surrender then fire on the soldiers who were attempting to capture them.Soldiers soon learned better to shoot first and ask questions later.
Posted by: Roxane at June 12, 2008 8:39 PM
Bad, stupid decision? You bet. But contemplate for a moment the kind of judges a President Obama will appoint to the federal judiciary. His selections will make Anthony Kennedy look like a strict constructionist.
Does John McCain have his faults? Absolutely. But it's almost a certainty that his judicial appointments will be far more likely to allow leeway to the executive to prosecute this war we're in now, or any war, with a necessary flexibility.
Our greatest enemy is radical Islam. Radical Islam's best friend in America is that portion of the federal judiciary which is Leftist. If you don't want this particular portion to grow, John McCain has to be your man in November, flawed though he is.
Posted by: Wellington at June 12, 2008 8:48 PM
@madijihadi
Are you trying to scare us? Are your statements based upon reality of a fairy story?
You insult me with your sloganeering.
You obviously do not know who the enemy is and must be very new to the forum.
READ AND LEARN or prove me wrong.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at June 12, 2008 8:56 PM
'People were held in Gitmo for 5+ years without even being told why they were there or given an opportunity for a judge to rule their case.'
Again, the 'people' in Gitmo know why they are there - Do we?
The theater is under jurisdiction (judge and jury) of Marshal Law; the Marshal did rule on their case: Gitmo for you.
at June 12, 2008 10:08 PM
'Actual terrorists deserve no less mercy and due process than rapists, serial killers and child molesters. That goes for Muslims too.'
Outside territory not deemed 'by us' theater of war they already do; Jihadwatch posts these trials every day;
They don't define parameters, we do.
Posted by: sainte at June 12, 2008 11:15 PM
'But contemplate for a moment the kind of judges a President Obama will appoint to the federal judiciary.'
If President Obama closes Gitmo as he says he will; the plan better already be in place to pull our apples out of the cart, or there will be some pretty unhappy campers in the expeditionary force I don't have to tell you;
Posted by: sainte at June 12, 2008 11:26 PM
madijihadi: Please be advised that sentimental nonsense is not the same thing as sound legal reasoning. Time to grow up----intellectually, emotionally and legally. After all, your post could have just as easily been submitted on behalf of German POWs from WWII, except for the fact that at least they were captured in uniform. Really, if this is the best you can do, give it up. You're embarrassing yourself without knowing it.
Posted by: Wellington at June 12, 2008 11:31 PM
Hotspur:
There is a country you can go to if you want to live in a place where the President arrests Supreme Court justices in time of war. It is called Pakistan.
Posted by: skevin at June 12, 2008 11:48 PM
Sounds to me as though the dissenting judges - Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - should be receiving brief, polite, appreciative letters from American jihadwatchers (especially, those who have some familiarity with law, and with American political and legal history).
Let them know - especially Scalia - that you think they were right. They may be feeling frustrated and discouraged. They need to know that they are the point of a spear; that behind them, giving them weight, are thousands of thinking people who care about our civilisation, its laws and its customs.
And encourage them to read Charles Malik, and Reza Afshari on Islam versus Human Rights, and Joseph Schacht and Antoine Fattal on Islamic law (especially as it pertains to non-Muslims), and the devastating chapter 'the disorder of the law' in V S Naipaul's 'Among the Believers', so that they know what we, as a civilisation, are up against. They need to know EXACTLY what is at stake.
Not only our Infidel soldiers and policemen, but our Infidel judges and lawyers, are on the front lines in the Self-Defence of Humanity Against the Jihad.
This time round, there has been a setback, a loss. But it does not have to be final. It was a narrow decision: 5 to 4. The Chief Justice did not like it. If he, and others who felt unhappy, are given support, and more information, things may go differently in the next skirmish.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 12, 2008 11:50 PM
This execrable ruling changes everything. These five judges already had a position they wanted, and their argument was just backfill to justify it. I honestly hope that they do live long enough to feel the wrath of the people for what they have done.
Meanwhile, the best thing the troops in the field can do: shoot, shovel, and shut up.
There is absolutely no value in taking the mujahadeen prisoner. We can't waterboard him, because the CIA is full of traitorous informers who will leak it to the press (but first they will run it by Sen. Carl Levin and his buddies). We aren't allowed to aggressively interrogate him, because that too is going to get us into trouble.
This ruling makes it even harder to get intel from these mutts.
And I agree with the poster who said that it is not likely that we would get anything of value out of a guy who's been locked up for six years. BTW, I am NOT a Bush hater. I voted for him in '04. But it has to be said that he did not fight hard enough during this vicious internal political war to justify his policies and actions. He lost that war because his advisers told him there is no use in having a pissing contest with the media. Well, I would have bucked that and gone right for their throats.
So, if we have to bring them into our system because the Court Jesters say this excrement is considered a criminal rather than a warrior of Allah, best leave them pushing daisies somewhere else. And to any soldier or Marine who is squeamish about this and might rat out his mates - let them know in no uncertain terms that no one has their back in a firefight.
at June 14, 2008 12:47 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)