Pirate's Cove

There must have been one hell of a legal brief to get the Supreme Court to make this ruling

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

In brief comments, Bush said he will work with Congress to get approval to try terrorism suspects before military tribunals.

So, give non-US citizens, who are also not members of a legitimate government, the same rights as US citizens.

The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

Just absurd, that terrorists are protected the same as American citizens. People who are part of the group that attacked and killed Americans multiple times, culminating in 9/11, as well as the people who sheltered and supported them. Sickening.

Many Republican Congress Critters are planning on introducing legislation quickly, and we will get to see how the Dems feel about treating said American citizen killers. With the elections coming up, the American people will get a good look at the way the Democrats comport themselves when it comes to the war on terror. And this one has nothing to do with Iraq.

A little roundup:

Hot Air points out that this decision has brought liberals out of the closet, showing their true colors. Looks like the Dems are showing that they really do want that world government

Yup. Pelosi is now on record granting Osama bin Laden the same Constitutional rights that US citizens who aren’t at war with the US enjoy. Hamdan has gotten Pelosi to put the Democrats’ real position on the table, giving the president a bright line to draw between himself and them for the mid-terms. When that happens and the topic is national security, the president wins every time.

Michelle Malkin has video and some choice comments.

Chris at the Jawa Report breaks it down

In short, holding terrorists at Gitmo or other detention facilities is allowed. However, Congress has not authorized the administration to create special commissions to try the detainees for war crimes. If Congress creates the law, Bush can create the commissions. Until then, either a) no trials, b) court martials or c) criminal prosecution in criminal courts must be used. (Me: so let the terrorists rot in perpetuity. I like it!)

Right Wing News:

Also, if the reasoning here is supposed to be that Congress hasn't approved of military tribunals, then let's put it up for a vote. My suspicion is that most Democrats would favor putting these terrorists through the American court system, which would mean long drawn out trials, the risk of classified intelligence sources being revealed, and lots of bogus acquittals. On the other hand, Republicans would favor military tribunals, which would sidestep all of those problems.

Stop The ACLU

Maybe they shouldn’t be so fast to celebrate. Not being able to detain these guys means that instead of them hiring ACLU lawyers they will probably just be killed on the battlefield.

Wizbang

That sounds like a great slogan for November and on to 2008: Vote for the Democrats. They're the party for terrorists' rights.

Sister Toldjah

And because this ruling was a “rebuke” for the Bush administration, there are others smiling: liberals and the MSM. Not because of their supposed staunch advocacy for “human rights” but because it equates to a setback for Bush.

Confederate Yankee:

Quite frankly, if SCOTUSBlog is correct in that SCOTUS is saying the Geneva Conventions apply to non-state terrorist entities, then the court is out of it’s ever-lovin’ mind.

What is then to keep them from applying the Conventions to other non-state groups? Can drug cartels now claim to be protected under Geneva? How about serial killers?

The message to the soldier in the field seems clear: Take no prisoners, and collect whatever intel you can gather off the bodies.

The liberals always like to point out that they support the war in Afghanistan, but loathe what Bush has done. What about a look at the left side?

Liberal, but not moonbat, Gun Toting Liberal:

Oops… it appears the Commander-In-Chief Der Furor and his cronies do NOT have the right to just snatch people up, toss them into military prisons, accuse them of war crimes, and try them with military tribunals after all: (those people snatched up were terrorists caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan, bub)

And how about our DUmmie friends?

•  6. Such is the mindset of your typical Fascist  These people have no concept of what it means to live under a Constitution – they would rule by emotion, fear and the gun. (um, the terrorists aren't US citizens. Except in your warped mind)
•  I've been screaming about habeas corpus ever since they opened Gitmo. People tell me I don't understand the law. Well, tell that to a SCOTUS justice, rethugs!! (I love terrorists!)
•   Bush is Hitler (you just knew Hitler would come up)
•  That is just plain WRONG! Bush is LIKE Hitler. Hitler himself is dead, remember? (the "worse then Hitler" argument)
•   This is very significant.  Good news that our democracy, somewhere, still has a thready feeble pulse still left.  "U.S. Law" and those quaint "Geneva Conventions" still figure into something somewhere? Wow. (another loon who forgets that Afghany terrorists aren't US citizens)
•  Is there anywhere to donate…. to these guys upon their release? I'm sure they'll have very little resources after spending so much time in custody. (I think this about covers it, eh?)

Perhaps the libs would care to adopt a "terrarist?"