Thursday may have been a dark day for those charged with fighting terrorism both here and abroad, but for many Democrats and the news media it was a day of celebration when five black-robed lawyers sitting on the US Supreme Court decided to handcuff the Commander-in-Chief in his obligation to protect the American people.

Just as the Warren Court hampered law enforcement in the 1960s that resulted in enormous increases in crime, so too is the current Supreme Court hampering asymmetrical warfare.

The decidedly liberal Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals to try suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp are illegal. The damage went even further when the court ruled that the Geneva Conventions applied to those terrorists who are captured by the US military.

Of course, anyone who knows anything about the Geneva Conventions knows that terrorists are not mentioned in any of its provisions. Actually, the Conventions stipulate several requirements before a person or persons are entitled to lay claim to the Geneva protections. For instance, the combatants must be wearing a uniform or insignia that is visible and recognizable from a distance; and the combatants’ weapons must be openly displayed. There are other provisions as well, but it’s not my purpose to dissect the Court’s decision, but to observe the reaction of those clearly ready to pop open bottles of champagne.

The ruling was reached by a 5-3 vote after the so-called moderate, Kennedy, joined the court’s more left-wing members in siding against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, recused himself because as an appeals court judge he had previously backed the government in this same case.

The court’s decision means that detainees will have to be granted the increased rights of prisoners-of-war, something the Bush administration has always opposed since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. He had good reasons. To put these terrorists on trial in civilian courts or open sessions of military commissions opens he door for classified information to be disseminated to the world including the terrorists. As it is, the US news media has been doing an excellent job of providing America’s enemies with abundant information. Now we’ll also have shysters leaking top secrets.

Leftist lawyers, who hoodwinked their way into the federal court system, will be deciding what information will be allowed in open court and what will be done in private sessions. However, slip-and-fall lawyers representing the terrorists will have access to military and/or intelligence agency secrets.

Both the Bush Administration and its critics acknowledged that while the ruling was a huge blow to a central part of America’s anti-terror strategy, it did not require the immediate closure of the Guantanamo prison. The Democrats seemed a bit disappointed when they heard that part.

The Supreme Court ruling brought smiles to the face of the detainees’ relatives and the left-wing groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and so-called human rights organizations.

While the Democrat lawmakers made the rounds of the news shows gloating over their empty victory. President Bush reminded them that: “The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won’t cause killers to be put out on the streets,” he said.

The President also vowed that the Guantanamo detainees would not be freed. His response infuriated the terrorists’ allies — lawyers, Democrats and news media — who want prisoners treated like normal criminal defendants. I used to laugh that the way things are going in this war, soldiers will be running around the battlefields giving terrorists and their associates Miranda warnings. Perhaps we can have the courts appoint defense lawyers to travel into war zones to make sure terrorists’ rights are protected. Sure, some lawyers will be killed, but isn’t protecting the rights of terrorists important?

Many hailed Thursday’s ruling as a major victory. But if it was a defeat for Bush and for Americans, then it must be a victory for left-wing politicians and reporters from the treasonous New York Times, since the court’s decision aids terrorists.

For instance, Zachary Katznelson, a lawyer who represents 36 inmates, said, “I think it’s a fantastic victory for us. It’s a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court to President Bush.”

Amnesty International said, “The US administration should ensure that those held in Guantanamo should be either released or brought before civilian courts on the US mainland.”

Senator Edward Kennedy said the verdict was a “stunning repudiation” for Mr. Bush. “The Supreme Court has reminded the president and [defense] secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law even when our country is at war.” I believe Kennedy did just that to a young woman the night he drove her into the water, and waited hours before calling the authorities.

The Supreme Court case was the result of an appeal by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni, who has admitted to being Osama bin Laden’s driver and bodyguard. He faced a single count of conspiring against American citizens. And the Democrats are celebrating his victory?

Taken together with the previous Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo inmates must have access to attorneys, Thursday’s decision makes fighting a war on terrorism much more difficult for the Bush Administration and for those in command positions.

Probably one of the happiest Democrats is Senator Patrick “Leaky” Leahy who got booted off the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking classified information. As the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he’s still too close to intelligence and military secrets in my opinion.

Sen. Leahy boasted, “The Justices have given our system a constitutional tonic that is sorely needed if we are to counter terrorism effectively, efficiently and with American values.” Of course, as usual, Democrats never explain how handcuffing the military and law enforcement make our counter terrorism strategy and execution more effective and efficient.
And with their comrades in the news media they never will have to explain.

Then, the Socialist gem from Vermont, Rep. Bernie Sanders, joined Leahy in praising the court’s ruling and in criticizing the Bush Administration’s policy regarding the detainees.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important victory in the effort to reign in the abuses of power we have experienced under the Bush administration,” Sanders said in a statement released by his office. This man gets elected? What abuse did he experience. All of a sudden it’s “we” who are saved? How are we saved by giving more rights to terrorist thugs?

Leahy called the decision “a triumph for our constitutional system of checks and balances. I commend the justices for acting as a much needed check on this administration’s unilateral policies that have clearly stretched the bounds of the president’s constitutional authority.”

I’ve got a great idea, those clowns in Vermont elected a Marxist and a treasonous leaker, so how about we send the detainees to Vermont and keep them there?

RELATED:
Liberal Judges Fire another Bullet
into U.S. Anti-Terrorist Efforts

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

Technorati Tags: ACLU, Liberals, Terrorism, Law, Homeland Security

1. Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Tribunals

   The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military

   Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — July 1, 2006 @ 7:03 am

2. Buy cheap phentermine….

   Order phentermine….

   Trackback by Phentermine 37 5mg. — June 7, 2007 @ 10:21 am

1. If the Bush Administration chose to establish a legal regime (with a provenance of jurisprudence), within which captured combatants are to be held or tried, then it should not be surprised if that regime is tested in a court of law.

   Comment by Chris — July 1, 2006 @ 7:48 am

2. Yes it is a terrible decision because internment without trial worked so well for the British.

   Comment by simon — July 1, 2006 @ 6:00 pm

3. Interesting reading on the decision:
   http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/06/hamdan-as-democracy-forcing-decision.html

   Comment by Matthew — July 1, 2006 @ 6:50 pm

4. Of course, anyone who knows anything about the Geneva Conventions knows that terrorists are not mentioned in any of its provisions. Actually, the Conventions stipulate several requirements before a person or persons are entitled to lay claim to the Geneva protections. For instance, the combatants must be wearing a uniform or insignia that is visible and recognizable from a distance; and the combatants’ weapons must be openly displayed. There are other provisions as well, but it’s not my purpose to dissect the Court’s decision…

   Maybe because you know it is right? I already pointed out to you how the “insignia” section is talking about something else, but you clearly don’t even care about the facts here.

   Do you remember after September 11th people talking about “defeating the terrorists without changing who we are.” This decision was a victory for that, maybe you could see it as such if you tried.

   Comment by Chris Bell — July 2, 2006 @ 12:24 pm

5. …it’s not my purpose to dissect the Court’s decision, but to observe the reaction of those clearly ready to pop open bottles of champagne.

   And there you have it. Clearly, the court was correct in its ruling that W. has overstepped his bounds, once again. And since there is no argument in the decision, rev up the slime machine and attack anyone who points out the correct nature of the Court’s ruling.

   The Supreme Court case was the result of an appeal by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni, who has admitted to being Osama bin Laden’s driver and bodyguard. He faced a single count of conspiring against American citizens. And the Democrats are celebrating his victory?

   Mr. Kouri, author of this biased piece, uses a form of analysis that is a common mistake. It is easy to confuse “one thing causes another” with “one thing follows another.” For instance, if I said that cabbages cause catepillars, you would say that is absurd. However, Aristotle made this very claim.

   Mr. Kouri suggets that Democrats are happy that Hamdan seemed to win this round. Au contraire, Mr. Kouri. Democrats are happy that Hamdan will be prosecuted under the rule of law, and not under some mysterious, unconstitutional “tribunal” under which nobody seems to know what will happen, there is no application of the rule of law, and no way to determine if the outcome is legitimate — no appeals — and no one, save for the few people sitting in judgement (people who the Right should be wary of supporting, given their penchant for judicial activism) is even aware of the trial, evidence and ultimately, outcome. Its called a kangaroo court, and is one of the driving forces in the founding of our country. The Constitution specifically says you have the right to confront your accuser in open court. Democrats are happy that this administration is being compelled to follow the rule of law.

   The bottom line here is that Hamdan will see his day in court, and if proven guilty, will be punished according to our laws. If there is evidence that is critical to national security that must be presented, we already have a mechanism to suppress the open dissemination of this information, and it should be deployed. But to say that anyone we detain, whether on US soil or one of our possessions or through our force majeure, is not subject to our laws, is un-American.

   The Court merely affirmed the limits to the President’s authority. And for good reason. W. has said he “knows” Hamdan is guilty. He also “knew” we’d find WMD, and I’m not talking about the small caches of chemical weapons that the Right is now holding up to say “see, WMD!” I’m talking about the “A href=”http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/”>mushroom clouds” and the “stockpiles of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear” weapons that were a “slam dunk.” With intelligence failures such as these, is there any question that the president is not right about everything?

   I have to ask what we are fighting for in Iraq, if not our principles. The latest rationale for the war is that we’re bringing democracy to the Middle East. What kind of democracy do we want to bring? One that looks like ours, or one that looks more and more like a despotic regime with secret courts, imprisonment without due process… sounds like Saddam all over again, doesn’t it?

   So, using the same type of faulty logic Mr. Kouri has in this peice, I guess Republicans should be happy that W. and his administration admire and desire to emulate Saddam and his totalitarian rule.

   Comment by Stop Bush! — July 4, 2006 @ 11:12 am