About This Blog
For those who might suggest Guantanomo is not under U.S. control and therefore the detainees we're holding there are not entitled to the most basic of habeas rights...
"In a concurring opinion on Thursday, Justice Souter said the ruling was 'no bolt out of the blue,' but rather should have been anticipated by anyone who read the court's decision in Rasul v. Bush in 2004. That decision, part of the initial round of Supreme Court review of the administration's Guantánamo policies, held that because the long-term lease with Cuba gave the United States unilateral control over the property, the base came within the statutory jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions." Link
"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
"We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material." Link
Anonymous Liberal nails it...
"....the right to challenge the basis of their detention before a neutral fact-finder. This most fundamental of human rights has long been held to apply to non-citizens, and it is not even remotely comparable to the constellation of rights and procedural safeguards granted to U.S. citizens by other sections of the Constitution."
"But McCain has clearly made a strategic choice. He's decided that the key to winning in November is to play the terrorism card once more and try to convince people that his Democratic opponent is somehow in favor of bestowing all sorts of fancy rights on terrorists and/or just letting them all go. And in order to make that insultingly stupid argument, he's willing to abandon every sensible position he's ever taken on this subject."Link
This makes me sad for John McCain....in a way. Appealing to fear, at this point, is such a pitiful road to go down. McCain, once perhaps deserving of the "maverick" title, is becoming, in real time, only a shadow of himself in his pursuit of the presidency.
Sad to see.
On a somewhat similar note....
Recently I raised a personal concern/observation over right wingers resorting to language of violence when they disagreed with the person or persons who spoke the truth. Jimmy Carter spoke a bit of truth, hiding in plain sight, that Israel possessed 150 nukes. Many right wingers yukked it up by speaking of Carter's hoped for, violent demise.
This piece from the National Review Online can go in the same file....
A Courtroom, er, Battlefield We Can Win On [Andy McCarthy]
An old government friend emails with a practical response to the Supreme Court:
Let's free all Gitmo detainees...on a vast, deserted, open and contested Afghan battlefield. C-130 gunship circling overhead for security. Give them all a two minute running head start. Link
I see a pattern forming.
Justice Scalia said about the majority ruling preserving habeas rights to people we detain indefinitely and without charge....
“America is at war with radical Islamists. … Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
– “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Link
These statements are the very definition of an activist judge. Scalia's one and only job is to determine Constitutionality. His biased words in deference to the executive branch, or more specifically George W. Bush, have no place in carrying out the job of determining Constitutionality.
His arguments sound like they were found on a right wing blog comment stream. "Everything has changed since 9-11 and the Constitution is not a suicide pact."
In a word..... lawlessness.
Final Note: The Akron Beacon Journal's editorial today on the Supremes ruling demonstrates an understanding of the Guantanomo detainee situation and a healthy respect for law and order and the Constitution.