Court says detainees have rights, bucking Bush

Logic? We don’t need no stinkin’ logic!

In a stinging rebuke to President Bush’s anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

The Chief likes the statement made by Jon over at SD Politics about this:

I think the dissenters are likely correct. This is an example of the courts stepping in to superimpose their policy preference for that of the president and Congress. While granting habeas corpus rights and access to civilian courts to enemy combatants might be good policy (emphasis on “might”), that doesn’t mean that the Constitution demands it.

Why might these people not have such rights? First, terrorists have no legal rights, not even under the Geneva Accords. Why? First, they are not soldiers. They do not fight for a nation, therefore they are not signatories to the Geneva Accords and cannot claim protection. Their very method of action, not wearing uniforms and targeting civilians, violates international law. By not fighting for a nation and not wearing a uniform they do not even have the rights of POWs, rights granted to legitimate soldiers, which terrorists are not.

Remember all the depictions in old war movies, with partisans, spies, infiltrators, etc. were subject to summary execution?
This actually happened frequently…with both sides.

The precedent for this for the United States goes all the way back to the hanging of British Major Andros, who was involved in carrying communications while in civilian clothes in the Benedict Arnold case of treason.

The rule has been: no uniform, no legal rights – life, and death is tough! The GITMO crew is getting off easy!

G-d help us from more liberal SCOTUS Judges…which brings us back again to the matter of the upcoming Presidential election: Obamanation, Abomination; same difference!