Will conservative voters hold their nose and campaign/fund raise for McCain now that they see the effect SCOTUS can have on the war on terror?

Will the MSM/Liberal -I told you so- victory dance ignite conservative voters to activism?

Will the SCOTUS decision influence -blue collar democrats- towards McCain?

Will the SCOTUS decision deprive intelligence agencies the ability to provide accurate intelligence?

Will the SCOTUS decision cause more terrorists to be KIA than captured?

Will you sleep better tonight knowing the SCOTUS decision protects you from governmental intrusion in your private life?

Or will you sleep restless tonight knowing domestic and foreign terrorists now have the same rights as you?

Please let this be a rally cry to those who are considering voting for conservative 'purity.' McCain has publicly stated his intentions are to nominate constructionists for the bench. The next administration will more than likely put up 2 (maybe even 3 and possibly up to 4) judges on the SCOTUS. Shall we expound on the creep of eventualism of this darkened road? Are we heading towards mirandizing these animals? 

 

[sigh]

 

 

 

There are certain things we as Americans should not tolerate or allow in our names. One is a the facsist practice of detaining someone indefinitely without charge. Note the administration has never commented if any American citizens are being held without charge in some CIA gulag. We should be proud of the majority justices for standing up and rebuking this administration. 

Here's why the decision was incorrect:

 

1) It assumes that holding these prisoners is a civil criminal process.  It isn't.  In a time of war prisoners are routinely held without being criminally charged.  In fact, it is ILLEGAL to charge someone with civil crimes for legitimate wartime activites--that is to say, if one soldier kills another in battle, that soldier may not be charged with murder.

 

2) It assumes the detentions are indefinite.  They aren't.  In a time of war, prisoners are held until the war ends, at which time they MUST be released.  If war crimes are committed, the prisoners may be charged and punished.

 

3) It ignores all precedent and gives rights to al Qaeda prisoners that no wartime prisoner (legal or illegal) has ever had--including US POWs--specifically, the right to seek their release through civilian courts while the war is ongoing.

 

4) The laws of war were intended to punish war criminals and protect both civilians and lawful wartime behavior.  This decision flips that rational on its head.  We are now protecting the criminals and endangering the legitimate soldiers.

 

5) If a court (including the SCOTUS) were to order the release of a prisoner, the President would be within his authority under the Constitution to refuse.  Remember, co-equal branches.  They may check one another, but not command.  And the the President has the exclusive authority as Commander-in-Chief to fight that war once congress has declared war (even when that declaration is not called a declaration of war).

Please let this be a rally cry to those who are considering voting for conservative 'purity.' McCain has publicly stated his intentions are to nominate constructionists for the bench. The next administration will more than likely put up 2 (maybe even 3 and possibly up to 4) judges on the SCOTUS. Shall we expound on the creep of eventualism of this darkened road? Are we heading towards mirandizing these animals? 

The real fun will be if the administration decides to release these people instead of compromising our intelligence system by putting them on trial.  Returning them to their country of origin may not be allowed by the courts because all of them have limited civil rights.  So we may just end up having to allow them to stay in the US as political refuges.

 

Hope the local cops and  courts are up to the job of stopping the terrorists before they kill again.

The UK found themselves in a similar problem last month, and decided to shutdown their anti-piracy activities until it can be sorted out.

 

The Supreme Star Chamber were wrong in this decision. The detainees left are a pretty damn hard core bunch, the rest (some 600 or so) having been repatriated or turned over to allies who had warrants out for their skin (nothing wrong there IMV). If you participate in a conspiracy on foriegn soil to kill US you have no rights anyplace in theConstitution, especially if you are picked up by US-MIL (again on foreign soil) in the act or being observed preparing for same (such as assembling a car bomb to be blown up at a time and place to murder US). It is wholy unappropriate to drag him/her to some CON-US base for questioning and trial. It is beyond absurd and this 4-1-4 voting essentiallygives Justice Kennedy the final say on everything discussed in the Star Chamber.

 

Control of this gang of 9 is essential to the safety of our nation and the continuity of our laws.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

Are we still confusing criminal and/or civil jurisdiction with military code of justice...in the middle of ongoing prosecution of a war? That is what should not (as has been since the beginning of this republic) be tolerated. I won't question your consistency, as I have no idea how you have felt about all the other wars we have been in. But if on the off chance that this differs from precedent actions (meaning you had no problem with pow's in past wars), then I would appreciate an explanation on difference. I would also like an elaboration on how one would arrive with fascist conclusion considering the above.

You guys keep talking war , but war is a specific state declared by Congress. The President can declare a "state of emergency" but it is the Congress to declare a "state of war". The Congress authorized Bush to use the military but as far as I know they have not declared a state of war. In WWII a state of war was declared so all these extra priveledges were granted to the POTUS.

But all SCOTUS is saying is that it must be determined if the detainees were ,in fact, on the "battlefield" attacking US troops. Many detainees were rounded up by 3rd parties and were not captured by US forces. If there is evidence they were acting against the USA then they should remain prisoners. A lot of faith is being put in anonymous accusations with no evidence being provided. 

So you have a prison where men are being held without charge, not certain under what circumstances they were picked up, no sure who actually picked them up, not sure if there is even evidence against them, just the word of an Administration that has been less than truthful, that they are dangerous, even though there has been no formal hearing to determine if they are dangerous.