Now here's a 'catch and release' program of which I would approve.
Posted on 06/13/2008 6:21:04 AM PDT by shortstop
In the latest effort to deconstruct and destroy the United States, the Supreme Court has decided that a foreign terrorist captured on foreign territory trying to kill Americans has just as many constitutional rights as a Wal-Mart shoplifter.
The liberals think this is a good thing.
That's because they're America-hating idiots.
Sorry, Obama, but if the shoe fits, cram it up your backside.
In the liberal world view, where the war against terror is no larger than Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the United States military is a collection of war criminals and puppy killers. Guantanamo Bay – where jihadist murderers and wannabes are held – is not a defense of American safety and interest, it is another opportunity to trash talk our country and the brave men and women who defend it.
Unfortunately, five of these flag burners are on the Supreme Court.
Until Imam Obama starts appointing justices – when we expect the number to jump significantly.
Yesterday, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court started a body count. And there will be one. Because this decision is likely to result in dead Americans and dead terrorists.
Here's how I figure.
The dead Americans will be killed by terrorists who are currently at Gitmo but who will soon be released, and by terrorists who might have been detained there but who will run free because there is no place to put them.
The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay include real terrorists who want to die in an American-killing blaze of glory. Some who have already been released have gone on to commit new terrorist acts.
So the Supreme Court is going to have blood on its hands.
American blood.
And terrorist blood. Because this is, after all, the real world. And in the real world, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
And though the evening news will never report this, Guantanamo is the politically correct way to handle these people. Culturally specific foods and prayer rugs and air conditioning is a big smiley face we're showing to the world. The odd irony is that living in a chicken-wire cage in Cuba is the best life most of these jihadists have ever had. When you're a war prisoner and you're gaining weight, you know you're not dealing with the same people who held John McCain.
Yes, the media-Democrat complex can trash Gitmo, but the reality is that things could be a whole lot worse for the detainees.
And now that the Supreme Court has put Gitmo out of business, they will.
If we can't do three hots and a cot anymore, I suspect we'll start doing .45s. I suspect that if people who conspire to murder American citizens and who go into combat against American troops can't be detained, they can be killed. There's no point in taking anyone into custody if you can't hold them. So you might as well not give them the option of surrender.
The alternative to Gitmo is a sniper.
Or, maybe for drama, we have a burly young man with an 82nd Airborne tattoo walk up behind the lingering battlefield jihadist and put a slug through his brain pan.
Easy as pie.
Because we can't let these people run free. Not if we want to keep our troops and our country safe.
And make no mistake about it, because of the Supreme Court decision, these people will run free. It's an unavoidable outcome.
The reason is that detaining them under the rules of a civilian court will require an unacceptable compromising of intelligence sources or a threshold of proof that is unlikely to be met.
If your evidence for holding a guy came by tossing a grenade through a window and shooting off some M16s in order to get some papers or a hard drive, a civilian court is going to wonder about search warrants and the Fourth Amendment. The evidence is going to be thrown out because it's the fruit of a poison tree.
The biggest problem is that it's important for the military and the intelligence community to keep quiet about how it gets its information. If the bad guys know what you know, they can usually figure out how you know it. And they're going to stop doing whatever it is that lets you learn about them.
If you produce evidence taken from phone communications, they're going to stop using the phone. If it came from a spy or mole you have in an organization, there's now a good chance they will find him and kill him.
To produce evidence against these guys will be to give them information they can use to fight us and kill us, and that can't be done.
So they will be let loose, rather than turn over everything we know or have to their defense lawyers, from whom it will somehow magically work its way into the hands of the terrorists.
A lot of these guys will go free, and people may well die as a result.
Because these judges can't tell the difference between run-of-the-mill crime and an effort to annihilate the United States of America.
Terrorists have rights. They have the right to leave us alone, or they have the right to die. It's one or the other.
No matter what the Supreme Court says.
The alternative to Gitmo is a sniper.
Rock. On.
Yes, this decision will likely result in the death of more of our soldiers, but in the eyes of the 5 lawyers sitting on the supreme bench, these will only be the sons and daughters of the little people.
The liberals think this is a good thing.
That's because they're America-hating idiots.
Sorry, Obama, but if the shoe fits, cram it up your backside.
I like Mr Lonsberry's thinking!
The catch and release philosophy shows how sportsmanlike we are.
Gitmo bookmarker
Rough ‘em up a little and slip a tiny locater beacon into them amidst the moderate to mild beating. Send ‘em on their merry way and track their every move.
Now here's a 'catch and release' program of which I would approve.
Which brings up another point. Not only has the US Supreme Court paved the way for a national "no prisoners" policy for the United States, it has also expressed a preference for slaughtering vast numbers of folks in the vicinity of the people we need to shoot at.
That Ruthy Ginzburg is one bloodthirsty little byche isn't she.
Precisely.
And I think all the remaining "detainees" (liberal-speak for "Terrorist M.F.") should be released immediately.
I've got a spot picked out in West Texas, and a few friends who can be counted on to hunt them down like the rabid dogs they are.
Take no prisoners.
“A lot of these guys will go free, and people may well die as a result.”
That doesn’t make a bit of sense. If these guys are guilty of terrorists acts against the United States then try them in court, show the proof, then hang them upon a guilty verdict. If they did no such thing then they do get to go free. How hard is that to understand?
We have lost our minds when we think freedom and liberty is only for us and never the guy next to us. Imagine if our legal system treated you that way: Never a court date, a trial or a disposition. You simply languish in jail forever because someone said you might have done something.
World War II “Take No Prisoners”.
End of the story.
Our Supreme Court Sucks and should be dismantled.
Gitmo is not a jail. It’s a POW camp for Unlawful Combatents. This ruling is insane. Should N. Korean and VC be able to sue us for taking them prisoner in those undeclared wars?
Aside from any consideration of the actual issue, I have a problem with this liberal-speak title. It appeals to emotion, to consequences, which I can see Congress doing. But the Supreme Court is supposed to deal with one thing only: constitutionality. To ask them to consider such non-constitutional issues is to ask them to be activist judges, even if such consideration results in the ruling you want.
Since when did we start fighting wars by using lawyers in a courtroom? Clinton used this tactic with the first World Trade Center bombing. That worked well, didn't it.
Be careful of your terminology. A "POW" has specific rights in accordance with the Geneva Convention per his status as a captured lawful combatant. Gitmo is a detention center for unlawful combatants.
If these guys are guilty of terrorists acts against the United States then try them in court, show the proof...
...blow your network, get your agents killed, and never find an agent again.
The constitution was written to institutionalize the rights of citizens, who not only enjoy the rights of Americans, but are ALSO subject to the full range of American laws and to investigation by American law enforcement agencies - not those who travel the world using the anonymity of fictional documents and the cover of hospitable foreign regimes to avoid the eyes of justice.
Did you read the entire article? It explains why the evidence against them can not/will not be used in a trial. They will be released “for lack of evidence”....
UNLEASH hell, we can start with telling these bastards what we think about their ruling.
Supreme Court of the United States
Public Information Office: 202-479-3211, Reporters press 1
Clerk’s Office: 202-479-3011
Visitor Information Line: 202-479-3030
Opinion Announcements: 202-479-3360
Did you read the article? Are you being willfully stupid? A criminal trial is a lot different from a military tribunal, one big difference being full disclosure to the defense. Some sources cannot be revealed for security reasons. Additionally, in a full-blown criminal trial all the technicalities apply. Zacharias Massaoui didn't get the death penalty for instance.
Either that, or turn them over to the local authorities in Iraq and/or Afghanistan for prosecution (and probably execution). My guess is enemy combatants would much prefer Gitmo and military tribunals to the other options......
Roberts is a shameful disappointment. He should reign now in disgrace.
And how exaclty is Roberts responsible for this disaster? He can’t force Ginsberg to vote with him you know.
What portion of his dissenting opinion is shameful, moronsky? (And you best be able to cite it before opening your piehole again.)
Open up the front gate and let them free in “kyuber”. If Raul complains, well...TS
You are assuming that terrorist play by gentleman’s rules. Their version of a trial is to crank up a video camera and make a video of beheading their captives.
Roberts is a shameful disappointment. He should reign now in disgrace
The idiots who voted for the terrorist and their lawyers like Ramsey Clark, were Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and two more I can’t remember. Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas voted against terroist.
Breyer and Stevens.
If the decision does kill people, no problem. You see, judges cannot be held liable for judicial acts. Who says so? The Supreme Court.
Good point!
Glad I read through, and saw someone else catch this...
There is just no need to classify these terrorists as anything but a continued danger to our society...We keep these types of psychopaths locked up in our prisons for a reason...These knuckleheads are no different...
Remember McCain supports this as well.
Why let them go? There’s no reason to. In any case, according to the laws and usages of war these pukes aren’t exactly criminals ~ they’re more in the class of ununiformed saboteurs.
Roberts was part of the five in the majority? I’m truly surprised.
Anyone have a breakdown of who concurred and who dissented?
BTW, foreign terrorists do not have a right to our liberties. The USSC is wrong. I suspect most of them have taken money from AlQaida and the Saddam Hussein interests.
Roberts was NOT part of the majority. It was the typical 4 libs plus the flip flopper Kennedy.
That’s what I suspected. The comment about Roberts really surprised me.
bump
“Should N. Korean and VC be able to sue us for taking them prisoner in those undeclared wars?”
Our founding fathers warned us against such actions as undeclared wars. If we intend to wage war then call it, wage it, and win it. This idea whereby we have lost the concept of war and instead think of ourselves as police using the military is just nuts on all kinds of levels for all kinds of reasons. It’s like partial circumcision: Either go all the way or forget it.
I am all for getting to the root of who did 9/11 but not at the expense of using our military as a police force and the US holding people indefinitely without any known disposition. What are we going to do, hold them forever? When is this “war on terror” over such that we can repatriate the prisoners?
Imagine another country holding you prisoner without trial or a status as a POW without a war having been declared on the US.
The terrorists blend into the local population and are irregulars at best, and well below the level of soldiers fighting in a recognized uniform.
POWS are held until the end of hostilities. It would be a gift to Islamic dirtbags to treat them the same way.
If need be, yes. Why not?
There is an alternative. Parole has been recognized among the civilized West for 800 years or so. If an islamodirtbag repudiated jihad, that should be considered when deliberating his release. Otherwise, keep him in a cage until he rots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.