COURT DECISION WILL KILL PEOPLE

boblonsberry.com ^ | 06/13/08 | Bob Lonsberry

[shortstop]

In the latest effort to deconstruct and destroy the United States, the Supreme Court has decided that a foreign terrorist captured on foreign territory trying to kill Americans has just as many constitutional rights as a Wal-Mart shoplifter.

The liberals think this is a good thing.

That's because they're America-hating idiots.

Sorry, Obama, but if the shoe fits, cram it up your backside.

In the liberal world view, where the war against terror is no larger than Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the United States military is a collection of war criminals and puppy killers. Guantanamo Bay – where jihadist murderers and wannabes are held – is not a defense of American safety and interest, it is another opportunity to trash talk our country and the brave men and women who defend it.

Unfortunately, five of these flag burners are on the Supreme Court.

Until Imam Obama starts appointing justices – when we expect the number to jump significantly.

Yesterday, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court started a body count. And there will be one. Because this decision is likely to result in dead Americans and dead terrorists.

Here's how I figure.

The dead Americans will be killed by terrorists who are currently at Gitmo but who will soon be released, and by terrorists who might have been detained there but who will run free because there is no place to put them.

The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay include real terrorists who want to die in an American-killing blaze of glory. Some who have already been released have gone on to commit new terrorist acts.

So the Supreme Court is going to have blood on its hands.

American blood.

And terrorist blood. Because this is, after all, the real world. And in the real world, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

And though the evening news will never report this, Guantanamo is the politically correct way to handle these people. Culturally specific foods and prayer rugs and air conditioning is a big smiley face we're showing to the world. The odd irony is that living in a chicken-wire cage in Cuba is the best life most of these jihadists have ever had. When you're a war prisoner and you're gaining weight, you know you're not dealing with the same people who held John McCain.

Yes, the media-Democrat complex can trash Gitmo, but the reality is that things could be a whole lot worse for the detainees.

And now that the Supreme Court has put Gitmo out of business, they will.

If we can't do three hots and a cot anymore, I suspect we'll start doing .45s. I suspect that if people who conspire to murder American citizens and who go into combat against American troops can't be detained, they can be killed. There's no point in taking anyone into custody if you can't hold them. So you might as well not give them the option of surrender.

The alternative to Gitmo is a sniper.

Or, maybe for drama, we have a burly young man with an 82nd Airborne tattoo walk up behind the lingering battlefield jihadist and put a slug through his brain pan.

Easy as pie.

Because we can't let these people run free. Not if we want to keep our troops and our country safe.

And make no mistake about it, because of the Supreme Court decision, these people will run free. It's an unavoidable outcome.

The reason is that detaining them under the rules of a civilian court will require an unacceptable compromising of intelligence sources or a threshold of proof that is unlikely to be met.

If your evidence for holding a guy came by tossing a grenade through a window and shooting off some M16s in order to get some papers or a hard drive, a civilian court is going to wonder about search warrants and the Fourth Amendment. The evidence is going to be thrown out because it's the fruit of a poison tree.

The biggest problem is that it's important for the military and the intelligence community to keep quiet about how it gets its information. If the bad guys know what you know, they can usually figure out how you know it. And they're going to stop doing whatever it is that lets you learn about them.

If you produce evidence taken from phone communications, they're going to stop using the phone. If it came from a spy or mole you have in an organization, there's now a good chance they will find him and kill him.

To produce evidence against these guys will be to give them information they can use to fight us and kill us, and that can't be done.

So they will be let loose, rather than turn over everything we know or have to their defense lawyers, from whom it will somehow magically work its way into the hands of the terrorists.

A lot of these guys will go free, and people may well die as a result.

Because these judges can't tell the difference between run-of-the-mill crime and an effort to annihilate the United States of America.

Terrorists have rights. They have the right to leave us alone, or they have the right to die. It's one or the other.

No matter what the Supreme Court says.

[Jacquerie]

We captured tens of thousands of Germans in WWII. Should each of these POWs had their day in court? Should the soldier who captured them had to testify?

The terrorists blend into the local population and are irregulars at best, and well below the level of soldiers fighting in a recognized uniform.

POWS are held until the end of hostilities. It would be a gift to Islamic dirtbags to treat them the same way.

[kempo]

Does this mean is we capture Ossama Bin laden he has the right to remain silent?

[Jacquerie]

What are we going to do, hold them forever?

If need be, yes. Why not?

There is an alternative. Parole has been recognized among the civilized West for 800 years or so. If an islamodirtbag repudiated jihad, that should be considered when deliberating his release. Otherwise, keep him in a cage until he rots.