[Congressman Billybob]

This is my analysis of the Hamdan decision, handed down this morning, and in part of the defective press coverage of it. It's a long read, and hard-slogging, but I think you'll find it useful.

I wrote this up in part in preparation with a live interview with Jerry Agar on the news in Kansas City at 6 pm local time, 7 pm, Eastern. So, I can't stay around for comments, but I'll check in after that broadcast.

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.

[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.

[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.

[fso301]

bump

[mrsmith]

Yes, the court's violation of the DTA law was the big story- and the media faithfully covered it up.

Especial thanks for slogging through the garbage in the rest of the ruling.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP re: Decision.

[TruthNtegrity]

Read later.

[Hattie]

Our great Supremes deliberately applying International Law to these terrorists, to the detriment of our country and our people. That is what I see.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Congress has the Ace of Trumps: IMPEACHMENT of the SCOTUS 5.

[Sun]

Mark Levin, who wrote "Men in Black..." discussed this on his radio show:

THIS from the Geneva Convention, Article 4, is what the 5 SCOTUS sell-outs ignored:

“A. Prisoners of war … are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

“1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

“2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this terrirory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

“(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

[Teacher317]

The Christian Science Monitor gets the facial decision correctly

I have noticed this odd trend that the Christian news sources have been amazingly more reliable, informative, and interesting than even Fox News... and I'm no Bible thumper (despite the fact that I'm leading Bible discussions for about a dozen Chinese students here and abroad... goodness only knows how I got myself roped into THAT one, LOL!)

[piasa]

Thank you, sir!

[Ethan_Allen1777]

Judge Napolitano absolutely embarassed himself doing "analysis" of this case on FNC.

[LibertarianInExile]

Good article.

"As is common in Scalia Dissents, he chastises the majority in strong language. He writes, “ Though the Court resists the Bruner rule, it cannot cite a single case in the history of Anglo-American law (before today) in which a jurisdiction-stripping provision was denied immediate effect in pending cases, absent an explicit statutory reservation. By contrast, the cases granting such immediate effect are legion, and they repeatedly rely on the plain language of the jurisdictional repeal as an ‘inflexible trump....’”

A clearly unConstitutional decision. Congress should impeach based upon it. They won't. More's the pity.

[PogySailor]

Thank you. I always enjoy your writing.

[PogySailor]

Hey, Rush is reading this!

[Bahbah]

Hey, John, Rush is just now reading your piece on the air :)

[My Favorite Headache]

Bump

[Para-Ord.45]

Referance ping

[Mo1]

later read