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)

[harpo11]

Just hoping our brave troops will forget about taking prisoners and save the American taxpayer the expense of sending these low life scum terrorist vermin who spit on our great Constitution, who have sworn to kill anyone who does not submit to their delusional islamofascistic fanatacism, who are so cowardly and vile that they hide behind women, children, old and infirm, and who do not face our courageous troops like men through our court system for which many Americans have sacrificed their lives to defend and protect.

It is disgusting enough that we have to feed, clothe, provide shelter and medical care to these subhumans while guests of Uncle Sam.

May the 5 Supreme Black Robes, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer names live in infamy for giving succor to America's enemies. I wonder on the day that they pledged their solemn oath of office if they really meant it when they spoke those words while placing their hands on the Bible? Or, did they merely think of themselves as above it all?

As you can surmise, I do not know the specifics of the rule of law, but I do know when there are those who do not want to see America vanquish from the face of this earth the "evil doers".

Thank you for your analysis of the decision. I will indeed, slog through it to get a better understanding.

[garv]

This is an excellent post and I am not trying to be critical, but whay didn't you address Thomas's dissent?

I read the opinions today and his was as strongly worded, if not moreso, than Scalia's.

[Big Giant Head]

bookmark

[Ecliptic]

I think you are right...good thought!!

[expatpat]

Good analyis, John, and thank you. I understand what the Court did much better, now, but there's lots I don't understand about the Court.....

[Big Giant Head]

So, in Haditha, we are "murderers" because we fight back. If instead we capture them, we cannot prosecute them militarily. It's like an anti-war pincer movement designed to tie the military's hands so they must endure defeat.

Can't kill 'em, can't prosecute 'em. Might as well hand out the spitballs and terrorist voter registration applications.

A good argument for NEVER electing Democrat majorities ever again, IMO.

[gaspar]

I don't know what is worse, preparing an income tax return or trying to understand the Supreme Court. Why is it that only Scalia seems to be intelligible? I have for decades believed that the intellect of Federal judges at all levels in greatly over-rated. Certainly, they can't write a lick, and their logic is often baffling.

[Congressman Billybob]

Frankly, I had 171 pages to read, analyze, and write-up, and it had to be out the door by about 6:30 pm Eastern. When I got to Thomas' Dissent, I was running out of time. Yes, I know that Thomas writes with clarity, and sometimes with the boldness that one always expects from Scalia.

So, I'm sorry I didn't give enough time to Thomas' Dissent, here. I just got to that late.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

There's a typo. It is Article III, Section 2. Article III is the judiciary provisions in the Constitution.

John / Billybob

[Fury]

Do you guys sense the unease on the part of the DEMS over this ruling...they are quiet

As they should be. NSA "warrantless wiretaps", SWIFT and financial transactions, the whole issue on phone numbers being collected, resolutions to pull out of Iraq (failed in a miserable manner), and now this. If the case can't be made that Dems really don't believe in the security of the United States, then nothing will make that case.

It's an apple waiting to be picked, polished and presented to the voters.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

"I'm debating a rant tomorrow on why this is actually GREAT news for the coming series of elections." You beat me. Dern it. :) It's great news!

If Congress takes this up, yer damn right it accrues in our favor!

[tpaine]

Congressman Billybob; -- This is an excellent post and I am not trying to be critical, but why didn't you address Thomas's dissent?

Possibly because Thomas did not agree with Scalia on some of the finer points.

I read the opinions today and his was as strongly worded, if not moreso, than Scalia's.

Got a link to an html version of the Thomas dissent? I can't re-find the one I skimmed through earlier.

[Congressman Billybob]

I like your screen name. My next book will have on the cover a drawing of the Minuteman, and these words from Thomas Paine, "These are the times that try men's souls."

In answer to your questions, the way to get Justices on the Court who will obey the law and the Constitution, rather than rewriting them, requires two things: 1) Elect Presidents who will nominate Justices who will obey the law. 2) Elect Senators who will approve such Justices. There is no other way.

John / Billybob

[Citizen Tom Paine]

It is clear to me that the terrorists held at Gitmo are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. They were not in uniform. They carried no official ID cards. They have no serial numbers. They do not report to a uniformed superior of a recognized government, and have no rate/rank. Recall that all a prisoner is required to give is name, rate, serial number, and date of birth.

The Supreme Court stepped in its crank big time in part of the decision.IMHO The decision makes one consider where this country is headed and where the final destination may be.

[oceanview]

we need to elect one more republican president and congress, to purge the court of the liberal bloc. stevens and ginsburg will not last until 2012.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

What we see in this case, as in "liberalism" generally, is a perfect detachment from reality - and attachment only to what will get the best PR.

That is, pure arrogant cynicism.

This case applies "lawful combatant" status on people who eschew any scruple of adhering to a heirarchy reporting to a commander, and especially of wearing uniforms and bearing arms openly. That is understandable, in a situation where conventional military power is overwhelmingly stacked against them. Fine, I understand it - but it is absolutely inimicable to the Geneva Conventions.

Those who favor this ruling presume that they are projecting sweetness, light, and moral superiority by "expanding" the Geneva Conventions. Instead they are heedlessly undermining them by cynically applying the sanctions of the Conventions on the one side of this conflict which actually assays to adhere to the Conventions. They are in fact entirely delegitimating the entire rationale of the conventions.

The conventions attempt to prevent the abuse of noncombatants; by eschewing uniforms and open bearing of arms our opponent abuses the civilian population and makes human shields of them. And then these Pharisees criticize Americans when they are only ones attempting to protect civilians.

A caller to Rush illustrated this perfectly by pointing out that this SCOTUS ruling says that there is no difference between a noncombatant Iraqi civilian and a terrorist. And that if such be the case, those Marines who are in the brig on chages of killing a noncombatant civilian should be released forthwith. The logic is inescapable.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Lawyers ought to have no place in these proceedings. Its not about law in any normal sense.

You do have a way of cutting to the core of a matter!

[ladyinred]

The press is of course blowing this up into a major defeat for the President, and that Gitmo must close, blah blah blah! I am furious as usual. I think I stay that way these days! Meanwhile, Putin says they will hunt down and kill those who killed his citizens and the world liberals are silent.

[tpaine]

What do you see as necessary to get a court that decides on a Constructionist view rather than making up new law as they go along as they seem wont to do?

lexington minuteman 1775



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




to get Justices on the Court who will obey the law and the Constitution, rather than rewriting them, requires two things: 1) Elect Presidents who will nominate Justices who will obey the law. 2) Elect Senators who will approve such Justices. There is no other way.
John / Billybob



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



There is also the time honored third way. -- Flat out civil disobedience, -- as when we the people refused to abide with prohibition.

This scares the hell out of government at every branch & every level.

[fso301]

bump