Read these excerpts and tell me who wins and who loses:
| Supreme Court rules for Guantanamo prisoners
Guantanamo Bay prisoners can go before U.S. federal judges to challenge their years-long detention, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that delivered a stinging setback for President George W. Bush’s policies. […] “Today’s decision forcefully repudiates the essential lawlessness of the Bush administration’s failed Guantanamo policy,” said Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union. […] “The entire basis for the existence of Guantanamo Bay is gone,” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, a military lawyer assigned to defend Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan, in the Guantanamo tribunals. “It’s a victory for all Americans because it reinforces the principle that no person or agency is above the law.” |
So it’s a loss for President Bush and his administration.
And it’s a win for terrorists.
And the ACLU and Amnesty International.
Oh, and for all Americans.
On that last one, I have my doubts, but we’ll see.
I’m guessing it will end up being a loss for some terrorists and “enemy combatants” who presently are not in custody. I expect more will end up dead on the battlefield. Or wishing they were at Gitmo under yesterday’s circumstances than in the foreign prison system into which they have disappeared after being captured by Americans and being turned over to others.
Anyway, here’s another Supreme Court story from the other side of the planet (I suppose):
| Top court rules against Americans held in Iraq
Federal judges cannot block U.S. military officials from turning over two Americans held in Iraq to local authorities who want to prosecute them for involvement in the insurgency or criminal activity, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. The high court’s decision was a defeat for two Americans who say they are innocent and who are being held by U.S. soldiers at Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport. […] Their lawyers say the two men might be tortured or even killed if they are transferred to Iraqi custody and that they should have access to U.S. courts to challenge their detention and to stop their transfer to Iraqi authorities. […] The Bush administration has argued that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over the cases, partly because the two men are being held under the auspices of multinational forces in Iraq, of which the U.S. contingent is only a part. […] The court rejected the administration’s arguments that the two men have no rights whatsoever to habeas corpus — the right to challenge their imprisonment. Roberts said the right extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command. But he held that U.S. courts do not have the power to block their transfer to a foreign country for criminal prosecution. |
Again, who wins and who loses?
And also, can that last sentence be used by the Administration to transfer all Gitmo prisoners to a foreign country so they don’t have to be admitted into the US court system?
All in all, it seems to me that these two cases are symptomatic of the degrading national sovereignty of the United States.
Disclaimer: I may not know what I’m talking about. 🙄
PS: If I were the next President, I would appoint guys to the US Supreme Court who wouldn’t put up with this kind of nonsense. You know, maybe like those two fellows Mr. Bush stuck on there. At least, I think I would. You could write my name on the ballot in November on the assumption that I would. 😀