Skip to main content

Leftwing Media Dreaming

Now the dreaming begins.....

"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's ruling that the Bush administration can't use ad-hoc military commissions to try suspected terrorists may have sweeping implications for other aspects of President Bush's war on terrorism.

The court's decision Thursday ignited debate about its full impact among lawyers, legal scholars, administration officials and members of Congress.

Some think the opinion could challenge the administration's claim the National Security Agency (NSA) has the right to eavesdrop without court approval on Americans suspected of having ties to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups."


Yeah....dream on.

The only "indication" from the ruling is that we still have leftist judges that legislate from the bench. That aside the ruling changes nothing at Gitmo other than Congress will simply turn around and give the President the authority - end of story.

It's amazing that the media continually and outright lies about how the NSA program is a "Bush deal", when it's existed for years. Additionally the only ones who can't seem to get their story straight is the media. Nevertheless, the Hamden decision has plenty of room to be re-argued on howbeit different terms base on the dissentions which were based on far greater reason that the hapless meanderings of Stevens.

This fact is well summerized in two points by Andy McCarthy at NRO:

"1. Justice Breyer's short concurring opinion maintains that all the court has really done is invite the president to seek legislation from congress authorizing the commissions and defining their structure. Several folks, me included, have argued from time to time that this is overdue anyway — we should have a national security court, created by congress to get many of the terrorism cases out of the regular criminal justice system. But that said, Justice Breyer's unfortunate invocation of the left-wing/civ-lib-extremist talking point, to wit, that "Congress has not issued the Executive a 'blank check,'" is bombast.

There has never been a moment since 9/11 when Congress, had it chosen to, could not have prescribed a new scheme for military commissions. The president's commission plan, well known since 2001, was fully permissible under existing statutory law and venerable court precedent. But Congress was not bound by it. It could have jumped into the breach at any point. In fact, it did jump in, enacting the Detainee Treatment Act in late 2005. By doing so, it demonstrated the obvious: if congress had been unhappy with the president's commission procedures, it would have modified them. Instead, it acted in a manner precisely designed to let the commissions go forward without court interference.

This was no blank check. Congress examined what the executive branch was doing, was fully satisfied, and acted to correct the only thing it found offensive — the judicial intrusion.

2. A big issue to watch out for as congress re-examines this: the protection of classified information from al Qaeda in the trial process.

One of the principal reasons for having commissions rather than courts-martial or civilian trials is to prevent our enemies from learning what we know and how we know it. But the court held that the president had not justified procedures which call, potentially, for excluding the terrorists from the courtroom when classified information is introduced.

Now, let's compare. Alien combatants have no constitutional rights; therefore, they have no constitutional right to be present at trial. On the other hand, protecting the security of the American people — which is what classified information is all about — is the number one obligation of government. So by what law does an al Qaeda killer's purported right to be present outweigh the American people's unquestioned right to have the government protect them (by, for example, not providing the enemy with sensitive intelligence)?

It could only conceivably be Geneva's Common Article 3 — an international law provision the court had to twist beyond recognition to give the enemy its benefit. That fuzzy language talks about providing "judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people." OK, but who says all "civilized people" would opt to elevate a homicidal maniac's right of access to the government's most sensitive information over the government's obligation to protect its citizens by withholding intelligence that may help those trying to kill them do just that?

Why is this question so important? Because you can bet a big part of the debate in congress will be about whether the court has left congress with any latitude here on this point.

That's why Jonah's observation about Hamdan not being constitutionally based is crucial. Congress absolutely has the power to deny al Qaeda terrorists the right to be present at portions of trial where sensitive evidence is introduced. Let's leave aside that the court's entire Common Article 3 rationale is hooey (the article doesn't apply to al Qaeda and the court owed deference to the president's interpretation to that effect). The salient point here is that when the inevitable argument is made that the Geneva Conventions now require handing over our intelligence to the enemy in wartime, congress — and more properly, the president (who has the authority to cancel treaties) — should make clear that we would withdraw from the Geneva Conventions (or at least any offending portions of them) before we do that.


The main point being that there is NO Constitutional protection for someone who is 1. Not a citizen, and 2. Commits hostile acts against the US. In this the justices erred completely.

So in essence, I see congress quickly acting to "reverse" the Court's decision and thus the entirety of it's effect.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Calling Mr. Fitzgerald?

**UPDATED AND BUMPED****

As I told you about in this post yesterday as a source confirmed to me that the Justice Department has launched a probe into the NSA leak. Mr. Risen, you are in trouble - prepare your defense. I told you so.

The White House will be announcing the probe at about 12:30pm. My source tells me that this probe will most likely result in another prosecutor being assigned as of course Fitzgerald is still busy/dizzy on the Plame/Game No-Leak. Additionally, other probes into other recent leaks such as the CIA 'prisons'leak is in the works as well. As I said, this is the NEW Bush - on the attack - it's no more Mr. Nice Guy!

About time! Also covering Michelle Malkin

*****End Update*********

UPDATE II: Looks like I owe my source big time as yet another tip comes true as the Washington Post is on the target list as well for the CIA Prison leak.

****End Update II*************************************

Update III: Via Fox: "The government has no legal right to…

Is the lid about to be blown off Able Danger?

Those who have been wishing for a full blown Able Danger investigation are about to get their wish. The "gate" has been unlocked.

9/11 Iraqi Connection

With Democrats calling for yet more investigations into pre-war intelligence, and Republicans like myself pushing back to help their 'sudden amnesia”, the growing stories of Able Danger and even China Gate, are beginning to make news.

The three main theories about why Able Danger hasn't gotten out of the "blog stage", are 1) To hide Clinton era responsibility for stopping the 9/11 attacks, and/or 2) To hide the truth behind China-Gate, or 3) The facts show that there in fact was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11.

Taking either one you can see why the Clinton worshipping MSM for the most part hasn't touched the story. Of the later point, Democrats, the MSM and even some of our investigations state that there was no 'direct' link between Iraq and 9/11. Say otherwise and the MSM will slice and di…

Able Danger - Pulling Back the Covers of the real Clinton Legacy

First, let's dispense with the bull crap. The meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officer Al-Ani, on April 8th, 2001 happened.

Yet, just don't mention it to the MSM, becaue since May of 2002, the MSM declared an all out assault on the story. A meeting incidently, that the Czech government has to this date stood by.

Let's review a little history:

October 13, 2001: Story of the meeting is leaked from somewhere in the Czech foreign service.

yet.....

October 20, 2001: Ny Times, John Tagliabue writes a story citing other Czech officials said the meeting never took place.

so.....

October 26, 2001: Czech Minister of the Interior, Stanislav Gross has a press conference not only confirming the orginal report but giving further details of Atta's other trip to Prague in June 2000.

then.....

October 27, 2001: The NY Times "recants" the October 20th denial.

The story continues it's oddessy of 'back and forth' until May 1st, 2002, when Walter P…