Who’s Wagging Whom? The Media, Democrats and the ACLU on Hamdan
Posted on June 29, 2006
I’m not sure if I should be impressed by what appears to be seamless message coordination by the Extreme Left/Media Complex or if I should laugh at what smells a heck of a lot like a steaming human pile of intellectually vacant dimwits with no original ideas. Come to think of it the latter option holds up even if the former were true. After all, it doesn’t take a whole lot of brain power for a glob of maggots to launch a coordinated attack on the same putrid piece of meat.
In a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration, the United States Supreme Court today ruled 5-3 that the military commissions system established by President Bush to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay is unfair and illegal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a victory for the rule of law in the United States,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “The Supreme Court has made clear that the executive branch does not have a blank check in the war on terror and may not run roughshod over the nation’s legal system. This decision moves us one step closer to stopping the abuse of power that has become the hallmark of this White House. Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decision, the president should make good on his promise and close Guantánamo.”
The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of war prisoners.
The Supreme Court today delivered a sweeping rebuke to the Bush administration, ruling that it exceeded its authority by creating tribunals for terror suspects that fell short of the legal protections that Congress has traditionally required in military courts.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying in a strong rebuke that the trials were illegal under U.S. and international law.
In a sharp rebuke of President George W. Bush’s tactics in the war on terrorism, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down as illegal the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners.
The court also delivered a stunning rebuke to President George W. Bush by disagreeing with his ruling that suspected members of al-Qaeda are not entitled to any protection under the Geneva convention.
FT also used the Romero quote.
Seattle PI (nestled amidst an uproariously ridiculous bit of analysis):
It was a rare rebuke to the president by the court that, after all, put him in office in the contested 2000 presidential race - and which many Democrats claim is moving too far to the political right.
Supreme Court Delivers Stunning Rebuke to Bush Administration Over Gitmo Trials
“The Supreme Court’s decision concerning military commissions at Guantanamo Bay is a major rebuke to an administration that has too often disregarded the rule of law.”
“As we approach the Fourth of July, it is entirely appropriate that the Supreme Court has reminded the president and (Defense) Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law, even when our country is at war,” Kennedy said.
What does the Fourth of July have to do with anything? I guess he had his Mah-tha’s Vinyud Independence Day kegger top o’ mind. At least he finally admits we’re at war.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law. The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and 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.”
OK — what do our Constitutional rights have to do with illegal terrorist combatants? “All” are “entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system?” This statement is worthy of a Ren to Stimpy “rebuke.” “Madame Pelosi, your wealth of ignorance is astounding.” As a wise commentator pointed out, I guess we’ve had a treaty with al-Qaeda imposed on us by five robed oligarchs.
The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terrorism policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under US law.
I’m sure there would have been far more Democrat celebration to chronicle if the world really is as liberals imagine it, but most are smart enough to know that the American people aren’t too keen on the invention of a legal doctrine that says foreign terrorist illegal combatants are no different from you, me and your Aunt Sylvia under the US Constitution.
One to Grow On: From now on, whenever you hear a leftist claim that conservatives do nothing but read talking points and speak in slogans…
» Filed Under ACLU, Activist Judges, Border Control/Homeland Security, News
Trackback URL
Comments
7 Responses to “Who’s Wagging Whom? The Media, Democrats and the ACLU on Hamdan”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
The Rule of Law does not exist when an oligarchy like the Supreme Court arbitrarily rules on each case. Hopefully the United States will return to the rule of law and get rid of activist judges. It will take hard work and the blessings of God to so.
Are you asking God to smite thine enemies?
Are you nervous?
No. I don’t really believe in God, but I’m just looking for some clarification from Kerwin.
God smites who he chooses but I know the only way I will have any success in any endever is if God is with me. He may choos to rule against me and then my endevours will fail. That is his choice and he is alway right unlike me.
I know you think God smites whomever he deems smiteworthy, but I’m just wondering whether or not you’re asking him to kill judges.
It will take a lot more that justices dying to return the United States to the Rule of Law. It will take changes in hearts and the desire to do what is right even if it means personal sacrifice.
If history is an indicator then all nine justices will come off the Supreme court the question is when and who if anyone will replace them.
It is known that Oliver Wendell Holmes started a revolt against natural law. I just hope that the U.S. is restored to the law of Nature and Nature’s God.