That’s what we will call it in the future.  Short, concise, to the point.  The ruling sent down by the Supreme Court last week will prove to be one of the most critical events of our time.  In a narrow margin of 5 to 4, the Court agreed to allow access to the U.S. civil court system to enemy combatants held at Guantanamo.

In 2005, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was catapulted into the political squabbles between Democrats and Republicans.  Democrats took a cue from left-wing activists groups and latched on to unsubstantiated claims of abuse and mistreatment of prisoners.  What grew from this political sparring has become a snowball out of control.

Guantanamo holds only the most dangerous enemy combatants.  These Islamic terrorists are the worst of the worst – the leaders, the planners, the ruthless.   Unfortunately, the Court’s majority contradicts the judgment of military commanders in regard to the threat of these prisoners.  Instead, they have chosen to view these prisoners as mistakenly incarcerated American citizens.     As Chief Justice John Roberts states in his dissent, “…detainees are designated ‘enemy combatants’ only after ‘multiple levels of review by military officers and officials of the Department of Defense.’”  These are not innocent people swept up in a raid, or misguided Muslims who were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The detainees at Guantanamo are sworn enemies of the United States.

Terrorists have watched and learned much from our public political brawls –enough to use our own system of justice against us.  In this instance, Boumediene v. Bush, petitioned the Court to apply the writ of habeas corpus for prisoners held at the Guantanamo facility.  This action will provide the terrorists with unprecedented judicial recourse – more than that afforded our military personnel facing a military court – complete with multiple layers of hearings, legal representation, access to classified information, and a right to question defense witnesses.  In an astonishing decision, the Court‘s five vote majority acquiesced. 

The Court’s decision to allow such access to war enemies – non-citizens who are not held on American soil – is at best absurd.  As Justice Anthonin Scalia points out in his dissent, this majority ruling disregards hundreds of years of legal precedent, including British law from which the United States legal code was modeled.  In an interview with the Wall Street Journal this week, former Justice Department official John Yoo observes that during World War II no German prisoners housed in the U.S. received civilian court reviews.  Additionally, he states that, “Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held [on U.S. soil] during the Civil War.”  With this ruling, the Court’s majority seems determined to ostend the beneficence of America by granting a type of provisional citizenship to our enemies – enemies who, in turn, chop off the heads of our soldiers when captured.  This takes the concept of “turning the other cheek” to a new level.

The political leanings of the five Justices which constitute the major opinion appear to have taken hegemony over the security and best interests of the United States to which they have sworn to serve.  Forget the semantics of constitutional intent or the minutia of legal possibilities and options, the result of this insane ruling will have dire consequences to the safety of our citizens and the sovereignty of our nation. 

If one needs an example of such consequences, we have only to look at the prison break in Afghanistan last week where more than 1,200 prisoners, including 400 known Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, escaped.  Just as predicted by military commanders, these prisoners rejoined their brothers-in-arms and have reconstituted a large Taliban-driven army.  Had the prisoners held at Guantanamo been detained in-country, they, too, could have been freed in such a break-out and back on the battlefields. 

What were the Justices thinking when they passed this ruling?  Or were they thinking about the real world ramifications at all?  It appears that the only thought put into this ruling by Kennedy, Ginsberg, Bryer, Souter and Stevens was to ensure a black eye to the legacy of the Bush Administration.  The final insult to Americans is the ironic probability that our tax dollars will go to pay for the defense of enemies that are trying to kill us. 

Well, lady and gentlemen of the left side of the Court, you have just hammered another nail in the coffin for America.  Unless Congress acts to remedy this tragedy, this naive and “benevolent” approach in dealing with enemies will inevitably lead to the collapse of the very freedoms for which you champion.  God help us all.



  1. The Ruling says:

    […] The Ruling It appears that the only thought put into this ruling by Kennedy, Ginsberg, Bryer, Souter and Stevens was to ensure a black eye to the legacy of the Bush Administration. The final insult to Americans is the ironic probability that our … […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s