The Gitmo Prisoners’ Case:What the Supreme Court Really Did, And How the Press Blew the Story

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 29 June 2006 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[GretchenM]

bttt

[el_texicano]

"I'm debating a rant tomorrow on why this is actually GREAT news for the coming series of elections."

Good for you Pukin'!!! Rant ON!!! Spare no prisoners!!! In a word (or phrase), "GIVE THEM HOLY HELL" Looking forward for it.

[Pukin Dog]

Now you've done it! Limbaugh saluted you. Nice work, my man.

[Pukin Dog]

It wont be today. Its hot, so I intend to just lay around naked playing X-Box games and eating gummy bears like a true slacker.

[Mia T]

Excellent, John... and kudos. Thank you so much!

[oh8eleven]

So, I'm sorry I didn't give enough time to Thomas' Dissent, here. I just got to that late.
What, you can't be in three places at once doing six things at once? [/s]
Excellent job!

[subterfuge]

Smarter Dems are seriously worried tonight.

That's right Pukin. When Joe-Sixpack watches the news he is going to see Dems, ACLU types and liberals as being responsible for the potential freeing of terrorists. Especially when they see Bin Laden's former driver being treated by these scum as as if he were a jay-walker.

[Jameison]

"A majority of the Court has thumbed its nose at both the Constitution and Congress by refusing to obey the 2005 law withdrawing its jurisdiction. The Court is, in effect, saying that “we own the law,” and “neither Congress nor the Constitution should control the actions of this Court.”


There's your reason for making sure we vote EN MASS in November, to make sure we retain control of the Congress, and prevent the appointment of constitution ignoring, hard line leftists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[Hillsdale Guy]

A majority of the Court has thumbed its nose at both the Constitution and Congress by refusing to obey the 2005 law withdrawing its jurisdiction. The Court is, in effect, saying that “we own the law,” and “neither Congress nor the Constitution should control the actions of this Court.”

Exactly, and liberals, with their usual disregard of the Con stitution, statute law, and common sense think we should not be able to do anything about this unconstitutional decision and this unconscionable attitude.

Anything for power, I guess.

[Hillsdale Guy]

From Freedom News:

http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/2006/06/supreme-court-undermines-war-effort.html

"The Justices have made their decision; now let them enforce it." These are the words of President Andrew Jackson after he lost a Supreme Court case called Worcester v. Georgia, a case in which the Court held that the Cherokee Indians were entitled to federal protection from the actions of state governments.

This should be the attitude of the Bush Administration toward the Supreme Court decision denying its ability to set up military tribunals, which were used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II and in every American war back to the Revolution. President Abraham Lincoln even sent a Democratic Congressman to jail for criticizing his war policies. Back then, America knew how to fight a war.

There is no constitutional basis for this decision. The terrorists held at Guantanamo are not lawful combatants. They do not represent a country nor fight on a battlefield under a flag. They do not wear uniforms. Thus, they are not prisoners of war under the Geneva Accord. And since they are not Americans or on American territory, they are not entitled to the protections of U.S. law.

This case involved Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard. Does the Supreme Court want him released so he can reconnect with his Al Qaeda buddies?.

This irresponsible, unconstitutional decision will damage our ability to hold terrorists and question them aggressively. Unfortunately, there are five members of the Supreme Court who seemingly would rather protect the rights of terrorists than you and me. These justices clearly wouldn't know the Constitution if it introduced itself.

This illegal, unconstitutional decision should be ignored.

[CDHart]

"once it is understood by the populace"

IMO, most of the populace would have to care first.

Carolyn

[OldArmy52]

I thought Ginsburg was off the Court by now?!

What's she still doing on it, thought she was going to retire?

That said, yes, nice analysis by JA. A case of the Court giving Congress the finger in a deliberate and insulting manner.

Democracy only works when the people involved aren't stupid, bad or corrupt. Thus answering why Democracy in the USA is in bad shape.

[RoseofTexas]

Postmarked for later read! :)

[el_texicano]

"It wont be today. Its hot, so I intend to just lay around naked playing X-Box games and eating gummy bears like a true slacker."

My hero, truly my mentor!!! LMAO

[colorado tanker]

why this is actually GREAT news for the coming series of elections

Absolutely. Hopefully, this will re-focus people on why holding the Senate is essential so we can get the crucial fifth conservative on SCOTUS and why this is the wrong election to try to "teach 'em a lesson."

[Jeff Head]

Very well researched, articluated...and, plainly said.

The majority has no real interst, IMHO, in the facts, history, precedent, or constitutionality of their ruling or the case...as has been the case in so many instances since the court was filled with their ilk.

Would that they all would apply the research and sentiments as you have done in this case. OUr nation would be much better for it over the last 25-30 years if they had.

Thanks Billybob.

[Thom Pain]

How is it that the typical, reasonably informed American citizen knows more about, and understands better, the U.S. Constitution than the majority of the SCOTUS??

[NonValueAdded]

Mon dieu, France! Congrats on having your opinion read by el Rushbo.

[TChris]

A majority of the Court has thumbed its nose at both the Constitution and Congress by refusing to obey the 2005 law withdrawing its jurisdiction. The Court is, in effect, saying that “we own the law,” and “neither Congress nor the Constitution should control the actions of this Court.”

These five arrogant overlords cannot be removed from power fast enough.

[lepton]

As for the law itself it may be an atrocity of legal reaonsing, some here think so.

What specifically?

The part denying jurisdiction is clear, concise, and directly authorized in the Constitution.