Posted on 06/29/2006 2:45:13 PM PDT by TSchmereL
Since the 1970s, a coalition of international human rights types and romantic supporters of Third World insurgencies has argued that guerillas ought to be covered by the Geneva Conventions even if they themselves are not bound by it. But every US administration since Jimmy Carter's has rejected this point of view. If I read Hamdan aright, the US Supreme Court has just accepted it, or sort of accepted it.
(Excerpt) Read more at frum.nationalreview.com ...
I agree.
We all agree..
Damn Hamdan.
Even our Dog agrees.
The President should just stall...eventually, Stephens or Ginsburg, will assume room temperature. At that time, a real independent and not an idealogue can be appointed.
Well, since Berkley, Ca. plans to put an advisory on their ballot to impeach Bush and Cheney, I think the Gittmo gangs should be sent to Berkley and released on O.R. and must PROMISE to appear in court in the future.
Thats even silly to say. If head-choppers are covered by the Geneva Convention, then, what? Is the International Red Cross going to file a dreaded report? Is the International Red Cross going to pay surprise inspection visits to their torture chambers, are they going to assure themselves that the bone knives meet international standards for sharpness and hygiene?
Will they interview hostages to see that they are happy with their accommodations in the trunk of the car, or the basement of whatever, during the couple of hours they are being kicked to death prior to being separated from their heads?
Some people are so silly, you wonder how they find their way to work in the morning.
A advisory to the Supreme Court:
No matter how sophisticated and erudite you think are, decisions such as these impugn your character and your fitness for office. This decision is foolishness and makes you look like idiots.
Jurisprudence is of little use to a man falling from a cliff or drowning in the sea.
From the justices who brought us the Kelo decision -- Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer -- more idiocy.
I can't believe how the MSM is spinning this as a defeat for Bush without also spinning it as a victory for the terrorists. Isn't that the logical conclusion? Speak up Dims! We can't hear you!
After reading the whole damn ruling I believe that those on the majority side of this ruling should be removed from office.
Next time we capture a Taliban guerilla or Iraqi insurgent in the battlefield without a uniform, we should detain them, interrogate them, have two officers verify that they were captured in combat without uniforms, then execute them on the spot.
No rational argument or existential threat slows this juggernaut of false egalitarianism. This unbalance finds no home in Constitutional originalism. Therefore, demand originalist judges. Since the GOP in power has been producing them, vote Republican despite their faults.
Why not just pull out of the Geneva Convention?
Well, it's EVERYONE'S civil right now, isn't it?
Leni
But the most troubling indications (in my humble opinion) aren't really being addressed yet. The first again deals with the Detainee Treatment Act and the Court's decision to ignore the provision removing the Court's jurisdiction over the case. As Justice Scalia said in his dissent: On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides that, as of that date, “no court, justice, or judge” shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that, on what it calls the statute’s most natural reading, every “court, justice, or judge” before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. This conclusion is patently erroneous. And even if it were not, the jurisdiction supposedly retained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion, not be exercised.
This patent disregard by the Court majority of this provision does not bode well for any future attempts to prevent the Supreme Court activism by removing law from their jurisdiction through Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, i.e. "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Equally as troubling, however, is that today's ruling signals that the Court has now officially abandoned traditional notions of deference when it comes to the conduct of foreign and military affairs by the President (and to a lesser extent, Congress). So much for any concept of separation of powers.
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.