Translation: "Alien enemy prisoners, waging a jihad against the American people and captured by our military in a war authorized by Congress, have a right — under our Constitution — to petition our courts for their release." National Review Online
Precedent: Never before in history has there been
an instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued [habeus corpus] on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes.Justice Robert Jackson, writing for the Supreme Court majority in Johnson v. Eisentrager ("case involving German operatives captured in China and held in zone of postwar Germany fully controled by occupying American forces.")
So much for precedent.
My Hero: "Eisentrager thus held — held beyond any doubt — that the Constitution does not ensure habeas for aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign…. [The majority opinion] is a sheer rewriting of the case.… By blatantly distorting Eisentrager, the Court avoids the difficulty of explaining why it should be overruled."
Justice Scalia, dissenting in Boumediene v. Bush.
What this case is really about: "The United States Supreme Court now routinely invents constitutional rights to support whatever social, political, and legal goals it deems desirable. It is so much easier to legislate from the bench than it is through the branches of government that were created by our Founders to do just that." Peter Wehner, Supreme Disgrace, National Review Online
What it means: "[F]oreign al-Qaeda killers detained in Cuba can march right into the federal district courts and demand what, suddenly, are their constitutional rights. In those courts, judges — without guidance and emboldened by the high court’s usurpation of war powers — will be encouraged to make it up as they go along: More access to classified information? Subpoenas commanding the testimony (and cross-examination) of our soldiers regarding the circumstances of capture? Miranda warnings? Prompt access to counsel, which is certain to halt any questioning — and thus any revelation of lifesaving intelligence — before it can even start? Full-blown trials in the criminal-justice system with the same presumptions of innocence, privacy, and other privileges vested in American citizens?" Editors, National Review Online.
More Scalia:
The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today… It sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
"What drives today's decision is neither the meaning of the Suspension Clause, nor the principles of our precedents, but rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy."
"The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."
More commentary on this ruling by "the al-Quaeda wing of the U.S. Supreme Court":Supreme Cowardice, American Spectator
Lord Kennedy, American Spectator
Remember what the Obamessiah said about the type of judges he'd nominate to the Supreme Court?
We're convinced: A vote for Obama is a vote for al-Quaeda.
No comments:
Post a Comment