That, of course, is what Justice Scalia said in his dissent.
Of the two dissenting opinions, Justice Antonin Scalia's was the more apocalyptic, predicting "devastating" and "disastrous consequences" from the decision. "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," he said. "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today." He said the decision was based not on principle, "but rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy."
But that's also what one of the terrorist lawyers, Harry Schneider of Perkins Coie, conceded this morning on KUOW's Weekday program. Some of the terrorists will have to be released. Some of those released terrorists will return to their trade. It isn't complicated.
It was not clear, at least to me, how much Schneider and KUOW's Gang of Four regret that likely result, how much they care about the American deaths that will result from this decision. It was not even clear whether they regret the almost certain deaths of moderate Muslims that will result from the decision. It is often forgotten, especially by KUOW's Gang of Four, that the principal victims of extremist Muslims are moderate Muslims. Who will be attacked for such sins as daring to educate girls.
Undoubtedly, Schneider sees some benefits coming from Boumediene, something that will make the bloodshed worth while. But he did not explain those benefits, at least while I was listening to him. (And I did not have time this morning to listen to the whole program.) Perhaps, like KUOW's Gang of Four, he sees his arguments as so obvious that he does not need to show his work, does not need to explain how he came to his conclusions.
For his efforts to help our terrorist enemies, Schneider deserves some of the same Elizabethan insults that I suggested for Justice Kennedy. But I think Schneider can be useful. As he admitted on the program, some of the terrorists have no place to go. He should offer to put them up at his home for the duration of the war.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Odd fact: Schneider claimed that he had been a student of Scalia's in law school. If so, I would have to say that Scalia failed, as every teacher does, with some incorrigible students.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 13, 2008 12:59 PM | Email ThisHow about illegal immigrants? Does they have Constitutional rights?
Posted by: bananaland on June 13, 2008 01:19 PMTo me, it's certainly concerning that a Supreme Court justice would engage is such extreme politically charged commentary.
"It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," he said.
He's supposed to be a justice, not a PR guy.
Is it the least bit surprising that these people might kill Americans? The American military is occupying their country.
The Iraqi government wants the US out of Iraq. The Iraqi people want the US out of Iraq. Since the US government has stated we'll stay there permanently, it's not the least bit surprising that they're going to be attacking our occupying army.
If China invaded the U.S., would you label Americans who killed Chinese soldiers as terrorists? I wouldn't.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on June 13, 2008 01:26 PMAnd some people here think it's good idea for nine unelected people to make decisions about how to prosecute a war. This adversely affects the next President too ya know, whoever wins.
Bad decision. Now, no matter where the American military captures a prisoner, since that ground is
practically under American control, that prisoner will automatically be given access to civilian courts here.
Right?
If you want to use analogies, you could at least use good, useful ones.
"If China invaded the U.S., would you label Americans who killed Chinese soldiers as terrorists? I wouldn't."
That's one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read online. Your adolescent attempt at analogy is absurd. Did you really mean to compare the USA today to Iraq with Saddam in power prior to the invasion? That's exactly what you just did. Did you really mean to compare China, with it's rich and lustrous history of human rights abuse, to the USA? That's exactly what you just did.
If you pull your head out of the small, dark place where it's stuck - you can actually see, breath, smell, and hear!! Imagine that.
Posted by: Larry on June 13, 2008 01:50 PMAnd I do hope that you will re-read my post, this time a little more carefully.
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 13, 2008 01:58 PMMaybe you should learn more about the concept of blind justice. It's probably pointless to even discuss this topic if you don't believe in the concept of justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_justice_(concept)
That's a typical Scalia type of quote there, so I'm not in the least bit surprised by it.
Posted by: Troy on June 13, 2008 02:19 PMNo more scheduled prayer five times a day. No special meals. If they want to be treated like the same as federal prisoners on US soil, so be it. All I can say is watch your back.
Posted by: Smoley on June 13, 2008 02:21 PMFor those not picked up on the battle field, they have obviously done something wrong, or are planning to do something wrong, so put them on trial, and if we have the evidence, let them hang.
What I don't understand is why, after wars FAR FAR worse than the one we are in now, America should toss our rule of law out the window... apparently out of fear. Are we really becoming such a nation of cowards that we are willing to sacrifice our basic civic principals in favor of additional perceived security?
Posted by: Splinter on June 13, 2008 02:55 PM
Read the excuses, defenses, and pathetic arguments in this thread defending the granting of Habeas Corpus to people who'd kill us if they could.
"Unintended" consequences? Whether intended or not by the leftists on the Supreme Court, I have no doubt that there are many liberals today hoping that this ruling will lead to our defeat in Iraq with whatever consequences accepted as worth the goal. The ends justify the means, right? And that, is more sickening than this ruling.
Posted by: Reality on June 13, 2008 03:05 PMYou know, I hated that the Afghan and Iraq Wars were fought in Florida and not on the ground. Calling in your desire for a strike, letting the enemy know ahead of time and then the attorneys prosecuting the war in Florida would give their okay. I thought that was bad enough; now we have this.
ToraBora and several other venues we could have nailed the b....s before they could escape come to mind. And now this.
Makes me feel like the Aflac duck after listening to Yogi.
Posted by: swatter on June 13, 2008 03:27 PMYou and other libs like you should figure out what side of the war on terror you want to be on. OUR side happens to be the country you live in. THEIR side is their religion.
There would be one big difference if the Chinese invaded the US. They have a country and an army. I don't think you'll see a bunch of Canadians running down here on their own to support the USA if China invades.
There has never been anything like these terror detainees. They are not sanctioned by their countries. They are doing it out of their overriding belief in their religion. Scalia has a responsibility to advise us of the price of this decision. I wouldn't want him to pull any punches, unlike the PC crowd that seems to love this issue so much.
You should really think about what's best for YOUR country. Not what's best for unaffiliated terrorists. Try not to let your irrational hatred of all things BUSH to get in the way of common sense.
Shockingly, I actually agree with you to some extent. What I've never understood is why we never treated Iraq like a conquered nation (didn't we win the battle after all?). I don't think we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, but if we are going to invade, lets make the tribal leaders our b***c, and if they get lippy, take them out back and put a bullet in thier head. Do that enough times, and I would imagine they would come around to seeing things our way. And the upside is, we don't violate any of our laws, we don't torture anyone.... We are just treating insubordination of our newly conquered military personnel in a quick and efficient manner.
Posted by: Splinter on June 13, 2008 03:36 PMIn summary, say WaTF?
Posted by: swatter on June 13, 2008 04:06 PM"America needs to do more to help the 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day by helping promote sustainable economic growth and development," said Senator Cantwell. "We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries. The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat poverty on a global scale while also addressing the national security risks extreme poverty creates."
No Senator, The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat the national security risks extreme liberal slack jawed halfwits like yourself and five of the nine Supreme Court Judges cause.
I have to laugh. The DEM's have never cared about our sevice people. The only reason they want to help them now is for votes and only votes.
Look back after Viet Nam, the dem's treated us as trash.
Heck just go back to Korea and see what happened.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 13, 2008 05:39 PMSay what?? Are you nuts!
Sorry but this is NOT Russia.
Go try the KOS or HA website.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 13, 2008 05:44 PMThey didn't. But the dem's & some supremes don't care. )-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 13, 2008 05:46 PMNot that you care. You'll just call me a liberal and then you don't have to think about it anymore :\
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 13, 2008 09:30 PMThat's rich - coming from a Ronulan. Sorry Andrew, you and your Paulian cohorts already did that. Now back to the libertarian loser party for you. Buh bye.
Posted by: pbj on June 13, 2008 10:09 PMYou want an atomic bomb dropped on New York because liberals live there huh?
Your post perfectly shows why the Republican party is viewed as a party of fringe, crazy and dangerous loonie birds. People so irrational, mentally unstable and driven by anger and rage, you can't even think straight.
Nuke New York.
How pathetic. Lunatic.
34. Honestly, I am to the point I wouldn't care if AQ attacked a liberal bastion, sanctuary city like New York again. They could nuke it for all I care. My only concern would be that only liberals died. I wouldn't shed a tear. Those traitors have done everything they could from day one to see that we are defeated. I am sick of it. We are not the United State of America but patriots and traitors. Posted by: NoMoreTears on June 13, 2008 09:00 PM
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on June 13, 2008 10:29 PMThat pretty much answers the question of who to trust to lead us through the next phases on the war on Radical Islam/terror. With all due respect, Sen. Obama would be weak at leadership during this war, using a similar approach to that of Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: KS on June 13, 2008 11:07 PMI can, in that context, see your point - but I would much rather that they actually live under my choice of the regimes they think are morally equivalent to the United States. And I mean actually live their lives under those regimes, no Shawn Penn's allowed to fly in and hang out with the oppressors for a couple of weeks.
Sowe know where our (feckless) Executive branch comes down. No? Actually yes. IF, and that is a big if, GWB were a true leader he would DEMAND that congress take a side. Will he? I doubt that he has it in him. BUT IF he were to do this it would restore ORIGINAL INTENT would it not? Yes it would, it would (regardless of the legislative outcome) knock the rogue SCOTUS judges back into the reality that they are not operating under Rex-Lex wherein the King is law and back into a Lex-Rex position wherein the Law is King.
They have no Divine right, they (in the aggregate) make up but one of three branches of Government. They, in this instance, have made a decision that is consistent with their duty (as they see it). We really have no qualms, our elected representatives appointed and confirmed them, WE HAVE NO QUALMS WITH THEM. Got it. If not you better get it or shut your God damned mouth about the Constitution.
If you disagree with the decision, YOU have an issue with the Executive Branch in this case. Got it? I doubt it but facts are sometimes inconvenient things.
The SCOTUS has ruled and their ruling is legitimate, BUT it does not trump the Executive Branch unless and until YOUR elected members of congress fail to weigh in. And that is where having a GWB in the White House will screw you. He is a poltroon, a political coward, he is going to (mark my words) FAIL in his duty to execute the power (as a separate but equal branch) to ignore the ruling pending the Legislative Branch taking sides. He could do this, he could legitimately do this, and in the process restore original intent. Will he do this? No he won't. He is a political coward, he is a sycophant, he us unworthy as head of his office. He has done a fairly good job as commander in Chief of OUR armed forces, but in every other area he has been an abject failure.
Unfortunately, we do not have a clear choice in the coming election. We have the further erosion of what our Country is about vs the destruction of our Country to vote for.
The message is: Republican candidates are not acting in your global interests.
There is no alternative though. It boils down to the question of: Will America, as it was set up, survive you. It is not Will my choice as POTUS preserve AMERICA. It's that simple.
I offer no advice on how to reverse this trend. I am simply making an observation.
Posted by: JDH on June 14, 2008 02:04 AM
Just one man's opinion. Take it for what it is worth.
Posted by: JDH on June 14, 2008 02:19 AMVote third-party and your vote will dilute the popular-vote tally of both major-party candidates. In states whose electoral outcome is not in doubt, that would seem like a better-spent vote than merely diluting one candidate's popular vote.
Posted by: supercat on June 14, 2008 05:31 AMThe fly in the ointment is that we have Curious George occupying the White House and if any good has come from 9-11 it is that he has been preoccupied with fighting terrorists and has not had free time to dismantle what is left of our migration policy or to further increase the size and influence of Government in our lives beyond what he did. Without his actions on the War on Terror and a couple of SCOTUS appointments (that he did his level best to screw up) the country has been ill served by his tenure in the office.
Posted by: JDH on June 14, 2008 11:30 AMPerfect synopsis of Keith Olbermann, Richard.
You say Justice should be blind, but it doesn't have to be deaf and dumb too...but you probably prefer it that way.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 14, 2008 12:23 PMGood work, Supercat, Pirate and Daniel!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 14, 2008 09:37 PMYou really need to get out and actually talk to people who have been to IRaq instead of reading the posts on Daily KOS about Iraq or listening to pretend soldiers, like Jesse Macbeth, and there claims on Iraq. The majority of Iraqi's that I have spoken to are fearful that the US will leave too soon. They do not want us to stay indefinetly, but they realize that if we leave now that they will almost certainly be overtaken by Iran. The Iraqi government knows this too and that is why they are in the process of negotiating a security-pact. Sure htere are some that don't want it like al Sadr, who is backe dby Iran (gee I wonder why he would not want Iraq to have a security pact with the US (sarcasm)), but the majority of the government does want it as a safety net against an early withdrawl of US forces.
Richard I will not doubt your support of the troops, I just question whose troops you support.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 15, 2008 01:29 AMIt might just make people that were planning to sit out the election because McCain isn't conservative enough, realize how important replacing the retiring members of the Supreme Court will be.
I think the more controversial decisions that come down like this before the election, can only help rally voters who were likely to stay home to vote for McCain.
Can you imagine what would happen if the court ruled that it is within a local government's right to outlaw gun ownership and Obama were to agree?
Making illegals and terrorists have equal rights with Americans, will result in less rights for all Americans. The law makers will compensate for the abuse that terrorist will do to our law, by limiting all of our rights in an effort to go after the terrorist.
Once again Bush brought this upon us with his crazy "enemy combatant scheme". For hundreds of years pre-dating the US, out of uniform combatants were SHOT upon capture for being out of uniform and fighting. You want to fight, then get in a uniform so the opposing army can sort out civilians with combatants ... that rule is brutal, but it works and it is how non-combatants lives are spared. Captured in a uniform and Geneva applies. Unfortunately our current retards in the White House think they are smarter than the collective wisdom of combat rules worked out over dozens of wars and hundreds of years. This is not the first time people fought out of uniform or did terrorism.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 16, 2008 06:37 PMHe just fumbled the ball for the umpteenth time. Gee, I am so puzzled as to why he only has a 29% approval rating. I am sounding almost as harsh as #54, who I don't always agree with.