SCOTUS Ruling Proves Liberalism is all Emotion, No Brains
Posted on June 12, 2008
Crossposted at Truth and Reason
Update: 6/13 – Scroll for updates…
Warner Todd Huston did a great job covering this earlier so I won’t post all the details again, but I wanted to share a portion of my post illustrating the emotion that is liberalism…no brains.
Wanna see what I mean?
One more Bush Justice on the Court, and the decision would likely have gone the other way. That’s why it’s so important for Americans to realize that in this election year, the Supreme Court is on the ballot. John McCain has already promised the GOP that he would nominate Justices to the Court exactly like those Bush has brought to the bench. This year, we must reverse the tide, and begin to restore a Supreme Court that upholds our individual rights and the laws that keep us free. (emphasis added)
That’s right, they are OUR rights…they keep America free. Not UNLAWFUL, ENEMY COMBATANT, TERRORISTS. How much evidence and common sense is it going to take to get through the emotion of liberals?
Foreigners in this country are entitiled (sic) to the same rights and protections as US citizens when charged with a crime. It is ludicrous to believe that should change on either just the Executive’s say so or becasue (sic) of the location of the prison. Someone held by the federal government is held by the federal government whether they are in Alabama, Gitmo, or the moon.
If these people are prisoners of war, then treat them as such. If they are not, then they are criminals and should be treated the same as every other criminal in the care of the federal government. Inventing a third class of people that the executive gets to do with as they please cannot be an option under our constitution.
I find it quite hypocritical that when defending elitism, the left shuns Alabama and the rest of the south as backward, out of touch, and not part of progressive America. But when it comes to a…sniffle sniffle…an emotional issue like habeas corpus, Alabama, Gitmo, and even the moon are now part of America. All emotion, no brains. These are not just “foreigners.” They are UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS. Also known as terrorists. Most of them fight for no country. This is unprecedented and our habeas corpus laws do not reflect that, but by today’s decision you would think it does.
These “people” are NOT prisoners of war and they certainly cannot be upgraded to criminal status. Criminals are CITIZENS who break the law and are provided certain rights. A POW is a LAWFUL enemy combatant. A terrorist is an UNLAWFUL enemy combatant. We didn’t “invent” this third class of people. They invented it themselves on 9/11.
All emotion…NO brains. That’s enough for now. It makes me tired. So it goes for the life of a patriot.
Update: 6/13 – Wizbang plays out a series of far-fetched, but not too much, scenarios of these terrorists’ day in court. Here’s the best one:
“People vs. Ismail Hussein.”
“Mr. Prosecutor?”
“Your honor, Mr. Hussein was captured in a raid on a terrorist hideout. He was caught with three kidnapped civilians in his custody. He had just finished a video of himself beheading a fourth, and was standing over the body with the knife still in his hand.”
“Sounds ugly. Who led the raid?”
“Sgt. Alleyne, who has been standing by to testify for eight months.”
“How did Sgt. Alleyne know that there were terrorists in that building?”
“She acted on tips from neighbors.”
“Did she obtain a search warrant before going in?”
“No, your honor.”
“Case dismissed.”
In wartime, you are guilty by association. And our military is trained and ordered to find those associations and kill them. That’s what war is. It’s not the emotion of liberalism, nor is it easy for a conservative to promote it either. But it is a stark contrast to a criminal, committing a crime, in America, who is innocent until proven guilty. As well as a lawful enemy combatant committing an act of war against America on our soil, in which case we have habeas corpus. Now, we have extended rights intended for lawful enemy combatants to terrorists, who are neither lawful nor fight for any country. The absurdities of the left never end.
» Filed Under ACLU, Activist Judges, Illegal Activities, Stupidity, Uncategorized, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
19 Responses to “SCOTUS Ruling Proves Liberalism is all Emotion, No Brains”
Leave a Reply
Let me just get this straight. Justice Kennedy writes an 80 page opinion that meticulously examines the various legal arguments involved. In response, you write six paragraphs that don’t even cite a single sentence of his work, and he is the one appealing to emotion?
Here’s a million dollar question for you: if he had voted the other way, but written the exact same opinion, would you have even noticed?
Dear Jeff, notice the disclaimer in the first sentence, and I quote (myself): “so I won’t post all the details again…”
If you’ll click my link, you’ll see my full post there, which includes a portion of his dissent, as well, an AP release.
7 of the Justices were appointed by republicans.
I guess this proves that the GOP cannot be trusted.
And, the rest of your post was utter nonsense.
“All emotion…NO brains.”
Sums it up quite well.
Well Jeff, you may be right about some of the justices on the bench.
As far as the rest being nonsense, since I don’t see any evidence, we can assume you are unable to defend your statement, thus making my points true and yours an, albeit false, opinion. But you are allowed to do that here in this country.
Sorry, you’ve written 15 paragraphs which all fail to cite even a single sentence of the ruling. Your arguments and those of the people you cite are purely consequentialist in nature and make absolutely no effort to examine whether or not the decision was actually legally substantiated.
I’ll repeat my question, since you haven’t answered it yet.
I think you were responding to jharp, not me, but I’ll answer for him anyways.
I haven’t read the entire ruling yet, but seeing as how I’m inclined to agree with them and they wrote a pretty thorough opinion, I’ll rest comfortably on their arguments for the time being.
The burden is on you to show why they are wrong.
I did show why they are wrong. Terrorists are not criminals and judicial precedent backs that up. The majority cited Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950).
The majority distinguished Guantanamo from the facility at issue in Eisentrager–a U.S.-administered prison in occupied Germany–on the ground that although the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is technically on Cuban territory, America exercises “complete jurisdiction and control” over it. Thus, detainees have constitutional rights pursuant to today’s ruling only if they are held at Guantanamo.
There is little advantage to the U.S. in sending enemy combatants to a facility where they will immediately be able to lawyer up, and indeed, Guantanamo has admitted few new detainees in the past several years.
It’s possible that Scalia is wrong when he predicts more Americans will die as a result of this ruling. It may be that al Qaeda is a weak enough enemy that America can vanquish it even with the Supreme Court tying one hand behind our back. Keeping future detainees away from Guantanamo should prevent them from coming within the reach of the justices’ pettifogging, as Warner Todd Houston accurately noted.
Common sense as well as judicial precedent shows the majority is wrong. If you can’t see that you are too caught up in the emotional glee of setting terrorists free. We’ll see if you’re still happy when they re-mobilize and attack this country again. Any future attack is on the hands of those five in the majority and those who support their decision.
Glenn Greenwald at Salon.
“How and why would any American object to the mere requirement that our Government prove that someone is guilty before we imprison them indefinitely or execute them?”
“That is all that yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling required — not that detainees be released, but that their guilt be proven in a fair proceeding.”
“The fact that the Right is so enraged by this basic requirement vividly reveals the authoritarian impulses which define them.”
TR,
“But it is a stark contrast to a criminal, committing a crime, in America, who is innocent until proven guilty.”
So, I take it that you object to the imprisoning of Jose Padilla, an American citizen, arrested on American soil, for 4 1/2 years with no charges, no lawyer, no trial.
Umm, that sounds correct to me. If we have uncontestedly occupied a certain piece of soil for decades, for all intents and purposes, it is our soil.
You’re probably right. That was an unfortunate decision by an administration that thought it could hide behind a technicality.
Even after several opportunities to elaborate, your position rests upon your belief in the importance of a technical distinction that has practical significance and your fears about possible future horrors that would otherwise be averted if only we held to your technical distinction.
I’m sorry, but I remain thoroughly unconvinced.
*that has no practical significance
Then you are disqualified from making emotional reactions to my arguments since I did read both sides of the decision. Again, mere emotion, especially when it’s based on a faulty opinion (the majority in this case) is even more unfounded than the opinion itself.
I’ve shown why the majority was wrong. I don’t need to read more of their same wrong talking points.
I always disqualify myself from making emotional reactions. Luckily, I could logically analyze your critique of the majority instead. I found your critique unconvincing because it relied on a healthy dose of fear and a meaningless technicality about who officially owns Gitmo.
You couldn’t logically analyze anything involved with this case because you didn’t read it. Thus you are disqualified from both anything logically (by default) and emotional because that’s inaccurate anyway.
The technicality over who owns Gitmo was made the majority in this case. My point was that in order to avoid seeing terrorists cycle from the battlefield, Gitmo, courts, back to the battlefield, the military will be more motivated to kill them before they send them to Gitmo now.
The part I disagree with is
“Criminals are CITIZENS who break the law ….”
Criminals are not necessarily citizens, and non-citizens can be and are tried as criminals when the circumstance merits. Illegal aliens committing additional crimes (beyond being an illegal alien) such as murder are not absolved of it by the fact of not being a citizen.
One need not know everything to evaluate a piece of persuasive writing. If you are to persuade someone, all of your supporting information should be included in your writing.
In fact, you took the same exact approach. I’m willing to bet that you didn’t read all of the briefs and you’re probably not a constitutional lawyer. Thus, you are significantly less informed than the justices that formed the majority. Yet you read their argument and found that it unconvincing. Similarly, I read yours and found it unconvincing.
I would only need to offer additional evidence, which would obviously require a more complete knowledge of the situation, if I wanted to write a complete counterargument. Instead, I’m just saying that your argument, founded on your disagreement regarding the importance of a technicality and your fears about possible consequences, was not persuasive.
It’s an near impossible task to convince a liberal who bases their entire philosophy on emotion. Facts just bounce off like a bullet proof shield. Persuasiveness is irrelevant.
I agree with the example, albeit irrelevant, you gave concerning illegal aliens committing additional crimes. But I would hope we know that is not what the context of what we are discussing here. Unlawful. Enemy. Combatants. Have no legal rights to our court system. Not even lawful enemy combatants do, according to judicial precedent. In wartime, proof of guilt is not a prerequisite for detention. If you are captured with the enemy, you are guilty by association and it’s a show of kindness that you are not executed.
It sounds like you have already decided that your only purpose in writing is to engage in self-congratulatory discussion with those that already agree with you. Have fun with that.
Here’s my .02 worth……and BTW I am a very conservative Republican.
1) Just because someone is fighting with the the Taliban or Al Queda, does not mean they are terrorists or illegal combatants. The Geneva Convention, as currently amended, provides that insurgents are legal combatants if they have a chain of command and carry arms openly. By this standard most of the people we capture in Afghanistan would probably be legal combatants.
2) Legal combatants can be held for the duration of the conflict – so not matter what, we can hold these people until we win or they die.
3) If we want to bring charges for war crimes or terrorist acts, than clearly these people are entitled to due process. I would prefer that this be in the form of a court martial – but now I gather that it will take place in the civilian courts.
4) As one TV judge pointed out, the whole problem could be avoided by not taking illegal combatants prisoner. For example during WWI both side simply shot troops caught with illegal sawtooth bayonets.
5) Finally, why should we give these people the very thing they want: Death at our hands. I say if they are convicted let them sit in prison until the die.