[Old Crow]

Not sure how many heard about this but it is, in my opinion, a pretty historic decision by the US Supreme Court, which on Thursday extended habeus corpus protection to enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay.

Here is a link to the opinion if anyone is interested: FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Sorry if it is a little technical but it sure is a stunning decision. Habeus petitions, also called The Great Writ, are basically a means for prisoners to seek relief when illegally or unlawfully held. What is so amazing about this 5-4 decision is that the US has never before extended such rights to enemy combatants.

These guys were already adjudged enemy combatants in the military tribunals that the President and Congress set up as previously directed by the Supreme Court. Now it seems the Court was just kidding. Essentially, civil federal judges can now review the determination of a military tribunal about whether some guy captured in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere is an enemy combatant. In theory, the military may have to bring a battlefield soldier or marine back to testify in such proceedings that the prisoner was firing his AK, shooting an RPG, etc. The civil judge will potentially have the ability to order the release of the prisoner if that judge decides he is not really an enemy combatant.

In effect, 5 unelected Justices have superimposed control over the war-making policy of the other two elected branches of our government. In fact, this is unprecedented in the more than 2 centuries of our country. This is the kind of thing that should bring home to all voters the importance of considering carefully who you vote for as President and the types of judges he or she indicates will be nominated when the opportunity arises.

[Captain Eddie]

Well stated, Old Crow. This whole thing is a travesty. John McCain has promised to appoint Jurists who actually ADHERE to the Constitution, but, with Congress fully in the hands of the other side, they have shown NO "advise and consent" of the President's picks, but have had no problem BLOCKING picks who have a fine, upstanding record, whos only sin is to be too conservative, who promise to ADHERE to the Constitution. Therefore, I have doubts if he would get whom he picked. I personally believe we are in BIG trouble.

[leeG]

I believe in the Constitution and am glad to see it is making a comeback.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by leeG

I believe in the Constitution and am glad to see it is making a comeback.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

A very appropriate quote leeG.

As I see it, the US Supreme Court is designed to be (relatively) impartial and above the normal emotionally influenced, 'special interest' and 'poll directed' flows of common politics - hence the fact that they're 'unelected' and there for 'life', making them beholden to no individual or group and answerable only to the supreme law of the land, the highly regarded US Constitution.

[Captain Eddie]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

A very appropriate quote leeG.

As I see it, the US Supreme Court is designed to be (relatively) impartial and above the normal emotionally influenced, 'special interest' and 'poll directed' flows of common politics - hence the fact that they're 'unelected' and there for 'life', making them beholden to no individual or group and answerable only to the supreme law of the land, the highly regarded US Constitution.

If only they would decide cases that way, Cardinal!

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by leeG

I believe in the Constitution and am glad to see it is making a comeback.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

Just what has the average law abiding citizen given up? Nothing! And wouldn't the left howl if the NRA threw this quote up to support the 2nd amendment. Oh how proud Neville Chamberlian must feel right now.

[mustangdriver]

[roowalker]

It is gratifying to see that a totally arbitrary "kangaroo court"system of justice is being corrected. One only has to remember the travesty of Nuremberg and the invention of the "enemy combatant" label. To institutionalize an illegal system of imprisonment was only one of our current administrations little mind games.

[Old Crow]

As I see it, the US Supreme Court is designed to be (relatively) impartial and above the normal emotionally influenced, 'special interest' and 'poll directed' flows of common politics - hence the fact that they're 'unelected' and there for 'life', making them beholden to no individual or group and answerable only to the sup

Cardo, on one level I think you and leeG are absolutely correct. It is the ability to protect individual liberties which makes the Constitution so precious and the envy of republics everywhere, including the independence of a judiciary appointed for life, beholden to no political party or view. The problem is we are not dealing with the issue of suspension of liberties to those protected by the Constitution. Instead we are dealing with the extension of a right to enemy combatants (as adjudicated by a military tribunal already approved by the Supreme Court) who are not even on U.S. soil. And habeus rights have never been legally or constitutionally applicable to enemy combatants.

In effect, the court is dictating policy in the conduct of a war, which is exactly not the purpose of the judiciary; the Supreme Court interprets law, it does not make law or policy. Which, of course, is why the 2 branches of our government who make law and policy (the presidency and Congress) are elected. In my opinion, this decision does not interpret a statute or provision of the constitution to ensure a fundamental right or prevent the deprivation of constitutional liberty. Instead, it arrogantly says to the the world the court is above the other branches of government, even to the point of controlling policy in fighting a war.

The President and Congress are elected to make policy and laws and, if they screw up, we get to vote them out and replace them with others, as just may happen in a few months. Shawn asked rhetorically what rights have been given up by the average law abiding citizen and answered his own question by saying none. Respectfully, I fear he is wrong. US citizens had an essential right weakened- the right to determine the course of our country by controlling policy through a representative government.

You know, we throw around a lot of quotes and sound bites on issues like this to express vague ideas of right and wrong, but this decision really has me fired up.

[mustangdriver]

To wind up in Gitmo you were at the very least doing something not on the level. I don't believe there to be too many regular guys just locked up there. I think this country needs to get a little tougher with its prisoners. Not fair to use rough tactics to get info out of a prisoner? Give me a break. What if that info wourld be vital to save the life of a family member of yours? Then would it be O.K.?