Geneva Convention Rights for Al-Qaeda
- From: "jose" <josefsoplar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jun 2006 10:31:11 -0700
Geneva Convention Rights for Al-Qaeda
By Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 30, 2006
The Supreme Court decided Thursday by a 5-3 vote that in effect granted
al- Qaeda terrorists the same rights as American soldiers. (Chief
Justice Roberts recused himself because of a previous decision on the
case while at the appellate court level; Thursday's ruling overturned
his decision.) Judge Clarence Thomas, reading a dissent from the bench
for the first time in more than 15 years on the Court, scathingly
criticized the majority for a decision that he said would sorely hamper
the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly
enemy.
In a stark reflection of the Left's inability to comprehend the core
facts of this war, including even the simplest grasp of the nature of
the enemy, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said vacuously that
today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush administration's detainee
policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the
American people and our Constitutional rights. Can the woman who may be
the next Speaker of the House really think that extending
Constitutional safeguards for imprisoned Guantanamo terrorists somehow
protects the American people? Or is she simply so blinded by leftist
ideology and a pathological hatred for George Bush that she is willing
to support Constitutional protections for enemy combatants in order to
defeat him?
Conversations with senior Department of Justice and Department of
Defense officials later on Thursday afternoon revealed concern but by
no means panic. This decision deals more with process, a senior Justice
official explained. It does not in any way affect the president's
ability to confine these enemy combatants to Guantanamo and in no
manner does the decision imply or state that closure of the facility is
necessary or desirable. Nor, the point was made, does the decision
necessarily have an impact on most of the detainees. Only those who are
being charged with war crimes, capital offenses, or offenses that could
result in lengthy confinement beyond the conclusion of the war are
affected by the decision.
Are the government's attorneys upset by the SCOTUS decision? You bet.
They stand strongly on the position that foreign terrorists do not
deserve the same levels of protection that American citizens do,
especially American soldiers - or even foreign saints. We were told
by the Court to make the protections for the detainees in question more
like a military court martial, a senior Defense official explained.
Others at the meeting bitingly criticized the Court for being more
concerned with terrorists than with our own soldiers, a sentiment
clearly reflected in Pelos's empty-headed remarks, gushing over
Constitution protection for those who are sworn to destroy it.
The positive part of the decision came from Judge Stephen Breyer
remarks that said nothing prevents the president from returning to
Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary to carry out the
military commissions. Was the Court intrusive on Executive Branch
privileges? It would appear so to many, although the decision was far
from the nail in the coffin for the idea that the president can set up
these trials, that Barbara Olshansky claimed it to be. Olshansky is
legal director of the hard-Left, New York-based Center for
Constitutional Rights, an organization that represents about 300
Guantanamo detainees.
Funding for the CCR allowing them to give pro bono representation to
Guantanamo terrorists such as Salim Ahmed Hamden, the plaintiff in this
case, is derived from a number of suspect sources. Analysts claim that
CCR funding includes large amounts from Gulf and Saudi sheiks as well
as governments known to sponsor terrorism. Hamden was Osama bin
Laden's driver and bodyguard, a position in a terrorist organization
that is given only to highly reliable and totally committed jihadists,
not someone seeking work to feed his family, as Hamden claimed.
Nonetheless, Hamden is hailed as a victim of American fascist
imperialism by the CCR and the Legal Left, cited as an example of the
many innocents confined at Guantanamo.
So what does the Court decision mean for Americans, practically
speaking? It does not mean that any of these terrorists now held at
Guantanamo will be arbitrarily released or brought before a left-wing
judge and set out on bail anytime soon. It does mean that military
commissions, being conducted on ten detainees charged with war crimes,
including Australian David Hicks and Hamden himself, will be once more
placed on hold. The irony is that defense attorneys for these men decry
that they have been held without trial and yet these same attorneys
spent years and millions of dollars upsetting the process that the
president put into place to give them a fair hearing in the first
place.
Thankfully Guantanamo, an essential node in the War on Terror because
of its confinement and interrogation capabilities, is to stay intact
and fully functioning. In fact the Court did not challenge either the
justification for existence of the facility or the notion that
interrogations are conducted on the detainees, both issues that defense
attorneys sought to get a judgment in their favor. On the Hill, Arizona
Senator Kyl and other like-minded, national security Senators are
rushing to work with the administration to formulate a bill that would
give the president sufficient latitude to deal with our enemies without
constant interference from those who would do us harm, including
home-grown threats.
Meanwhile, in the field American soldiers consider that they have once
again been slapped in the face by American leftists. They have endured
the constant pressure of harsh criticism from the left including
hysterical allegations of out-of-control brutality, incompetence, and
poor morale. Repeatedly they have watched major news media casually
release information to the public which, were they to release it, would
merit them courts-martial. The Court decision is yet another nail, not
in Bush coffin, as the Left wishes it to be, but in the heart of
American resolve.
Almost five years past 9/11 and Americans, particularly our soldiers,
are as Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn succinctly put it - still dealing
with a 9/10 judiciary, Congress, and Democratic Party. We won't lose
on the battlefield but have yet to recognize that the real fight is in
the media,in public opinion polls, and against slack-minded, overly
ambitious politicians that their primary job is protecting America, not
winning reelection. We can only hope that the Court can be fixed before
it gives away all of our protections.
.
- Prev by Date: Muslim Brotherly Hate
- Next by Date: New York Times' Open-Borders Hissy-Fit
- Previous by thread: Muslim Brotherly Hate
- Next by thread: New York Times' Open-Borders Hissy-Fit
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
