June 29, 2007
Will Anthony Kennedy Rule for al-Qaeda?
The abrupt and unexpected reversal by the Supreme Court today, deciding to rehear arguments about (essentially) whether to grant habeas corpus rights to unlawful enemy combatants detained abroad, hinged on the vote-switch by Justice Anthony "Weathercock" Kennedy. (Incredibly liberal Justice John Paul Stevens also switched, but his vote against was an aberration from the git-go; he was always going to switch if his would be the necessary fifth vote.)
But the impact may be profound -- and dreadful. As five justices had to vote to rehear, this may mean five justices (a majority) now buy the Democrats' central point: that enemy combatants must be treated the same as carjackers and check kiters: granted the full panoply of rights, lawyers, civilian evidentiary hearings, and of course, the ability to subpoena heavily classified documents and to yank top military commanders from the front line, during a war, to sit for weeks in a courtroom being cross-examined by an al-Qaeda attorney on future and ongoing American military plans and operations.
Or, if the subpoenas are rejected, to force the release of terrorist masterminds back into the outside world, where they will instantly start plotting more terrorist attacks (laughing at imprudent Western "jurisprudence" all the way).
From the New York Times:
The issue in the case the court agreed to hear today is whether the Congress can strip the federal courts of the power to hear habeas corpus cases filed by Guantanamo detainees. In legislation passed after last June’s Supreme Court ruling, Congress included a provision barring such suits by the detainees....
The Justice Department has argued that the nation’s defense would be imperiled if habeas corpus cases can be used by federal judges to second guess military officials’ decisions to detain enemies during wartime.
Under the theory of the most liberal members of the Court (and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party), we wouldn't be able to hold any prisoners at all... even on the battlefield. If habeas is granted to prisoners held in Cuba -- not American soil -- then it's granted to all prisoners held anywhere, in any country, so long as Americans have any control or access.
This should be fairly clear: Via "judge shopping," lawyers for detainees -- wherever held -- can always find a judge who is sympathetic to the plight of terrorists unable to ply their demonic trade against Americans... or at least completely unsympathetic to any coercive means the military might use to stop them, which amounts to the same thing.
Such a judge can order the production, in federal court, of every document demanded by the defense, including classified material detailing ongoing intelligence operations (which resulted in the defendant's capture but might have been "erroneous"). And the judge can order that "critical witnesses," such as Gen. David Petraeus (Commander Multinational Force - Iraq) and Adm. William Fallon (Commander CENTCOM), be produced in that same stateside court to fully explain details of ongoing military operations... operations that resulted in the capture of the defendant (relevance!) and perhaps future planned military operations that might be affected by intelligence we gather from the defendant (even more relevance!)
Additionally, under the Fifth Amendment, any detainee could refuse to answer questions or "be a witness against himself," and there woudn't be a thing we could do to force him. After all, if you can't force an American citizen charged with pickpocketing or dealing crack to answer questions, what possible justification can there be to force a Yemeni terrorist captured in Qatar by the CIA and held in Kuwait to answer questions? Certainly not without an al-Qaeda minder -- sorry, I meant "attorney" -- being present!
Simply put, unelected, lifetime-appointed civilian judges would take control of all prisoners captured by the military, the CIA, or even foreign intelligence agencies, if they're unwise enough to allow us access. Welcome to the wonderful world of Democrats.
I'm nervous about this hearing for two reasons:
- In general, I'm skeptical that the Court will ever finally rule that it doesn't have jurisdiction in such a momentous issue; power seeks more power.
- I'm especially skeptical when a majority of justices votes to rehear an issue; why would Kennedy vote to rehear this case -- and then vote to decide it the way it was originally decided back on April 2nd? I have the terrible feeling that Kennedy switched his vote on rehearing because he was persuaded, in backroom discussions with the Court liberals, to switch his vote -- on the underlying question, I mean.
What is really at stake here is whether the Constitution really means what a plain reading of its text indicates it means. The Constitution says (article III, section 2):
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Per above, Congress spoke: It made an exception to the Court's jurisdiction, just as the Constitution allows.
But the Court seems to interpret this constitutional provision as actually meaning that the Supreme Court has whatever jurisdiction it chooses to have, and to hell with the Congress. Evidently we have three coequal branches of government, but one is more coequal than the others.
What next? Will the sheep be trained to chant "five robes good, four robes bad?"
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 29, 2007, at the time of 3:24 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2216
Comments
The following hissed in response by: Bostonian
This will be addressed by killing the enemy on sight as opposed to taking prisoners.
This fact has never crossed the mind of any of these idiots who grant honorary citizenship and rights to people shooting at our troops.
Well, unintended consequences and all...
The above hissed in response by: Bostonian ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://biglizards.net/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 29, 2007 5:34 PM
The following hissed in response by: hunter
Bostonian is right. The GC allows for field executions of terrorists. It is time to apply the GC in full.
The above hissed in response by: hunter at June 30, 2007 5:07 AM
The following hissed in response by: hunter
As another thoght struck me, I thought it should be observed:
Some on the Supreme Court, and many others on the left and in Congress are more concerned with the civil rights of non-citizens who are caught in a battlefield than they are about the civil rights of American Citizens excercising their 1st Amendment Rights of free speech.
How disgusting
The above hissed in response by: hunter at July 1, 2007 7:13 AM
The following hissed in response by: eliXelx
Killing captured terrorists is not something decent American boys in the field want to do, nor should they be encouraged to!
Now here are some suggestions.
Let the SCOTUS decide that habeas corpus rules apply once again!
Let them subpeona secret documents and field commanders!
Let this all happen on TV, as the Spanish are doing, so that we can see the smirks, the nose-thumbing, the sly grins on the faces of the animals who are in the courtroom cage because they wanted to kill Americans; who didn't have the guts or decency to do it in uniform and while hiding behind a child or a woman; who surrendered KNOWING that they would get their shot at impunity!
Let this be done in vivid detail, the words of our soldiers against their terrorists; and we will soon see the American people themselves, given this dose of deadly-reality TV, begging the Congress and the Court to stop!
Can we trust the Sovereign American People, to know Good from Evil when all they're fed at present is a steady diet of Pablum?
Are we willing to go that extra mile to show that the American Justice system works?
Will the American People trust US or trust THEM?
It's a nation-risking question, but the American People need to see the corpus of this Evil in their living rooms, day after day, night after night!
The above hissed in response by: eliXelx at July 1, 2007 7:22 AM
The following hissed in response by: eliXelx
Killing captured terrorists is not something decent American boys in the field want to do, nor should they be encouraged to!
Now here are some suggestions.
Let the SCOTUS decide that habeas corpus rules apply once again!
Let them subpeona secret documents and field commanders!
Let this all happen on TV, as the Spanish are doing, so that we can see the smirks, the nose-thumbing, the sly grins on the faces of the animals who are in the courtroom cage because they wanted to kill Americans; who didn't have the guts or decency to do it in uniform and while hiding behind a child or a woman; who surrendered KNOWING that they would get their shot at impunity!
Let this be done in vivid detail, the words of our soldiers against their terrorists; and we will soon see the American people themselves, given this dose of deadly-reality TV, begging the Congress and the Court to stop!
Can we trust the Sovereign American People, to know Good from Evil when all they're fed at present is a steady diet of Pablum?
Are we willing to go that extra mile to show that the American Justice system works?
Will the American People trust US or trust THEM?
It's a nation-risking question, but the American People need to see the corpus of this Evil in their living rooms, day after day, night after night!
The above hissed in response by: eliXelx at July 1, 2007 7:27 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)
(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved
)
