Shame of the Supreme Court

by BD Pisani - 2006 jun 29

In a vote split 5-3, with Justice Kennedy joining the court's liberal members and Justice John Roberts sidelined because as an appeals court judge he ruled on the case, the Supreme Court today granted constitutional protection to America's enemies. You read rightly. Murdering terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay are no different from you...

Justices Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, John Stevens, and Ruth Ginsberg decreed that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.

It is important to note that Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito strongly opposed the decision. In their response, the three Justices stated "This decision will sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy. The court's willingness to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."

In defense of their head-scratching decision, the Court's liberals maintained that "Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order. Concentration of power (in the executive branch) puts personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials, an incursion the Constitution's three-part system is designed to avoid."

Constitutional rights for foreign terrorists?

It is now apparent that the hundreds of Guantanamo terrorists, terrorists who have murdered thousands of Americans and who fervently pray for the destruction of the United States, will become participants in the American judicial system as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Just like you and me. Just like our fellow American citizens they murdered.

But somehow, magically, these murderers benefit from constitutional protection. Even though we have no treaty with al-Qaida. Even though we have no treaties with any other terrorist groups. Even though the Geneva Conventions in no way apply to the imprisoned terrorists. Even though not one of the terrorists is representative of any sovereign military organization.

Somehow, those five liberal judges conjured up the vision that this murderous lot have the same rights as American citizens. What is more despicable still, they decided this while the terrorists' comrades continue to ambush and murder our soldiers.

Is there anyone who can justify this latest act of liberal judicial activism? Of course:

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi: "The Supreme Court's decisions in the Hamdi case and the case involving the Guantanamo detainees are triumphs for the rule of law. The notion that the President has the unchallengeable authority to define the circumstances of a person's detention, especially that of a United States citizen, is contrary to our nation's history and experience. The right to counsel and the right to contest government actions in court are among our most cherished liberties. We cannot, and we must not, allow our civil liberties contained in the Constitution to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."

Pelosi's loose screw

First of all, it is obvious Mrs. Pelosi never studied American history. Franklin Delano Roosevelt indefinitely detained hundreds of thousands during World War II, including many who were American citizens. Abraham Lincoln did the same during the Civil War but not as many, although nearly all Lincoln detainees were American citizens.

Second, many of the aforementioned detainees were sentenced by military tribunal to lengthy prison sentences; some were sentenced to death.

Third, other than today's cock-eyed ruling regarding citizen Hamdi, Mrs. Pelosi has no historical legal standing for her assumption that a group of foreign terrorists have any rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Fourth, there is something inherently sick about the glee in which Mrs. Pelosi celebrates the obvious judicial body blows just delivered to the sovereignty of the United States, the sanctity of the Constitution as the defining document of liberty for American citizens, and the prestige of President Bush in the eyes of the world.

Here are three questions for consideration:

  • 1. Are we at war?
  • 2. Did the Supreme Court have the authority to consider, even minimally, the legality of the detention of aliens seized during the fighting in Afghanistan and imprisoned at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay? and
  • 3. Should the terrorists' imprisonment (and eventual release, if they are ever released, and trial, if they are ever tried) be left entirely to the discretion of the Executive Branch?

Global government just took one step forward today. Can you spell U-N-I-T-E-D N-A-T-I-O-N-S?