Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Common Sense at War
Real Clear Politics ^ | June 30, 2006 | Ronald A. Cass

Posted on 06/30/2006 7:05:56 AM PDT by khnyny

Liberty may have been the traditional casualty of war, but common sense is its new colleague. The Supreme Court, trying hard on the anniversary of last term's Kelo decision to find a suitable sequel, performed a rare triple loop in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. It found jurisdiction in the face of a statute directly taking jurisdiction away from the Court. It second-guessed the President on the need for particular security features in trials of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. And it gave hope to One-World-ers by leaning on international common law to interpret U.S. federal law. If that weren't enough, the (left, lefter, and far left) turns were executed in the course of giving a court victory to Osama bin Laden's driver. What a perfect way to end the term!

The case challenged the Bush Administration's plan to use military tribunals to try Guantanamo detainees as enemy combatants who are neither within the criminal law and due process protections of the U.S. Constitution nor within the protections afforded prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions. The Administration has been assiduously trying to prevent al Qaeda terrorists from learning what it knows and doesn't know about their operations - an effort opposed by The New York Times, the left side of the Democratic Party, and most of France. Its plans for trial by military commission and its detention at Guantanamo of al Qaeda suspects captured outside the United States are part and parcel of that effort.

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: brainfarts; foreinglaw; hamdan; idiots; rumsfeld; scotus; supremecourt; wot

1 posted on 06/30/2006 7:05:58 AM PDT by khnyny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: khnyny

BTTT


2 posted on 06/30/2006 7:09:58 AM PDT by W04Man (Bush2004 Grassroots Campaign We Did It! NOW.... PLEASE STAY THE COURSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

This should be the one decision the Congress could have used to assert some kind of oversight on the Court, and could have been the decision the President simply ignored, thus sapping the arrogated authority.

But, nobody with any sense also has any courage, but will just supinely take what the Imperial Court deigns to allow them.

Impeachment should follow this, but I don't think it will. Still, I would firmly and loudly support the effort.


3 posted on 06/30/2006 7:11:22 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (www.stjosephssanford.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

Can we impeach SCOTUS?


4 posted on 06/30/2006 7:12:14 AM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tioga

If you mean can ordinary citizens, then the answer is no. Could the US Congress do so? You betcha, had they the courage and moral fiber to do so.


5 posted on 06/30/2006 7:13:36 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (www.stjosephssanford.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: khnyny
And most of us thought that we finally had a conservative Supreme Court after the appointments of Roberts and Alito.

Looks like we'd better think again.

6 posted on 06/30/2006 7:14:08 AM PDT by jpl (Victorious warriors win first, then go to war; defeated warriors go to war first, then seek to win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpl

One more...

After this recent ruling, every American needs to understand what is happening. Don't listen to the smug smiling faces of the MSM today saying "well, that's the rule of the law", because it's really not.


7 posted on 06/30/2006 7:17:40 AM PDT by khnyny (Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

By reminding everyone about the terrible Kelo decision, we remind them that while the USSC may be the final decider on an assortment of issues, they are far from correct on the issues.


8 posted on 06/30/2006 7:22:16 AM PDT by OldFriend (I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.....and My Heart to the Soldier Who Protects It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
Congress DID pass a law (the Detainee Treatment Act discussed here) specifically to remove these Gitmo cases from review by the courts. The USSC ignored that law.
9 posted on 06/30/2006 7:24:30 AM PDT by PogySailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend

[By reminding everyone about the terrible Kelo decision, we remind them that while the USSC may be the final decider on an assortment of issues, they are far from correct on the issues.]

Anyone can write an "opinion", even a Supreme Court Justice, that doesn't make it right.

Everyone should read the book "Men in Black."


10 posted on 06/30/2006 7:26:18 AM PDT by khnyny (Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

Then they should.


11 posted on 06/30/2006 7:26:19 AM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PogySailor

"Congress DID pass a law (the Detainee Treatment Act discussed here) specifically to remove these Gitmo cases from review by the courts. The USSC ignored that law."

And that should be the reason the president ignors the opinion and the congress endorses the action.

When pigs fly or when liberals speak the truth.


12 posted on 06/30/2006 8:15:39 AM PDT by Jim Verdolini (We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PogySailor

I understand that, and have seen pundits point this out. So, this being the case, I think the Prez does have a case (had he the intent) to actually and literally ignore this ruling.

After all, how many cops do the Supreme Court have and what would happen to their precious ruling majority when CJ Roberts doesn't have to recuse himself?


13 posted on 06/30/2006 8:20:10 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (www.stjosephssanford.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

I just can't help but think that none of this would be happening if we had had a formal declaration of war on Al Qaeda after 9/11, just as folks like Newt Gingrich had called for...


14 posted on 06/30/2006 8:22:20 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Our former understanding of the legal definition of "war" is insufficient for this current campaign. Al Qaeda isn't a country, it's a collection of individuals bound together by a vicious and brutal ideology that demands the death and/or complete submission of the "infidel". This is widespread terrorism, something probably not envisioned by our founders when they drafted the Constitution.


15 posted on 06/30/2006 10:02:49 AM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jess35
"probably not envisioned by our founders "

The Constitution works fine in this war- if the courts allow it to. It was written with a keen awareness of terrorism.

People forget our Founders spent their whole lives fighting vicious tribal fanatics before they wrote the Constitution and after.

Al Queda is no more capable of "out-terroring" my indian forebearers than Dagwood Bumstead.

16 posted on 06/30/2006 10:14:09 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

If you really think that's a valid comparison, perhaps you ought to take a trip to the ME.


17 posted on 06/30/2006 11:48:00 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: khnyny
Great Post! Thank You for your diligence.

I have just a Few Other LINKS to--that make I will put togther also .

Some on just on some "Outside" sources--to hear what everyone else has said onthis already-- and others on on "Side Topics ":

WHO Was Involved--who was Motivated by seeing this vote turn out as it had, Who were the Winners on the LIBERAL SIDE--and what Liberal GROUPS have also been fighting to bring America down and lower our National Security Efforts.

----HAMDAN V.S. RUMSFELD : The Wikipedia version. Actually contains alot of info and additional Links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld#Reaction_to_the_decision_from_the_United_States_government

---CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL BS Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Constitutional_Rights

---Micheal RATNER-Who is he--and why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ratner

---ZACHARY KATZNELSON- from the Liberal Org " REPRIEVE". Although HIS Name doesn't exactly "get Around" much--nor does he Take credit or is Given Credit in any othe the socalled Organizations He is STATED to Belong or contribute to!--I wonder why he is hiding this info from the Press and public--TRY to do a "SEARCH" yourselves to find INFO on him!

http://www.reprieve.org/about_history.htm

I also Plan to start a Thread post with Backround Information on RATNER & the Rest Involved in this INCLUDING Their--ADDRESSES--PHONE NUMBERS---E-Mail's--Place Posting On-Places Visited--Home and Business Addresses. Just In case ANYONE Interested would like to mail, talk, MEET with any of these Enemies to America and Democracy over the Globe. We ALREADY KNOW all the info on all the Other Traitors to America--just look up " Info on democrat Senate/Congress Directory " on the WEB.

Darth Airborne : " Women Crave him!...Liberals FEAR him!..."

18 posted on 07/01/2006 12:13:15 PM PDT by AirBorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jess35

I believe the Barbary Pirates are close enough to set such a precedent.


19 posted on 07/03/2006 7:07:23 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson