Cheney to Obama: "End This Reckless Experiment.... We Are at War."

“Bad ideas have dangerous consequences. The Obama Administration recklessly insisted on a civilian trial for Ahmed Ghailani, and rolled the dice in a time of war. The Department of Justice says it’s pleased by the verdict. Ask the families of the victims if they’re pleased. And this result isn’t just embarrassing. It’s dangerous. It signals weakness in a time of war. The Ghailani trial was supposed to be a test case for future trials of 9/11 terrorists.

The US Congress can and should tell the USSC to go Pound sand, then bring all justices with questionable logic not founded in the Constitution up for impeachment. My forst choice however would be to include in various Laws that we the people feel necessary, to include the clause: The Judiciary Shall remain Silent on this issue. Yes Congress Has the right and duty under the constitution to limit what the Judiciary can do, Read it and you will find I AM RIGHT. “

” UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY CONGRESS”

More from an article yesterday in the Weekly Standard:
Ghailani Found Not Guilty on 285 of 286 Charges

The Department of Justice says it is "pleased" with the guilty verdict on one count, which carries a 20 year minimum sentence, according to ABC. Ghailani was aided during his trial by the judge's decision to exclude key testimony from one witness because the government learned of the witness's identity during a CIA interrogation of Ghailani that employed so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Holder HAS to go!

Yet the justices disabled national defense in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld by falsifying an association of terrorists with Common Article Three of Geneva Conventions. False because terrorists do participate in international armed conflict, lack pacific character, and do not meet definitions for legitimate armed forces.

Thanks much. I went to wikipedia to read up more on Hamden vs Rumsfeld. What disgraceful action by our Supreme Court that you say paved the way to civilian trials for foreign terrorist scum

Good point. In a longer version of the same point I included my own rewrite of a porion of Marbury vs. Madison. Here it is:

A paraphrase from justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury vs. Madison appropriately defines our limited Constitution and helps apply this understanding to all branches of government. “The powers of the judiciary are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by a judiciary intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the judiciary on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution either controls any judicial act repugnant to it: or, that the judiciary may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary judicial act, and like acts of other branches, is alterable when the judiciary pleases to alter it. Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the judiciary repugnant to the constitution is void”.

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.