There's going to be some spittle-flecked outrage afoot:
Justices, 5-4, Back Detainee Appeals for GuantánamoOh noes!
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its third consecutive rebuff to the Bush administration’s handling of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, ruling 5 to 4 that the prisoners there have a constitutional right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.
The court declared unconstitutional a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that, at the administration’s behest, stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from the detainees seeking to challenge their designation as enemy combatants.
Whatever will we do if we can't throw people into a black hole for years on end, until (and if) we feel like dealing with them?
We do what civilized societies have done for hundreds of years and hold the government to account for why someone is being jailed, then try the person, accordingly, that's what. Establish guilt before indefinite imprisonment; that's the long and and the short of today's decision and it's utterly unacceptable to many on the far right. In fact, well beyond "unacceptable," the heads of many of El Presidente's authoritarian cultist lackeys are positively ready to explode over this decision. Cue the slack-jawed Freepi:
Try and grasp just how truly warped that mindset is:
Despite their professed reverence for our society's values and the idea that ours is the best system in the world, again and again, these self-proclaimed "patriotic Americans" advocate an imperial presidency that tramples underfoot the founding fathers' protections against tyranny.
Far from being patriots, these individuals' views reveal them to be, at their core, urine-soaked cowards who can't feel safe without a strong "Daddy" leader who rules with little more than a "because I said so." Talk about your creepy obsessions. And then to try and take your cringing devotion to a strong daddy hand, wrap it in the flag and question the loyalties of those who disagree?
As odious as I find the last several years' worth of accusations of insufficient patriotism, I have to ask, which position is truly the more un-American: Faith that, as they have for the past 230 years, the guiding principles of our government will see us through this difficult time, or the willingness--and, if truth be told--the outright enthusiasm to throw them away for a nigh-imperial leader?
When it comes to "the destruction of these United States," the latter is more damaging a blow than anything a thousand Gitmos-worth of detainees could accomplish.
"It is another reason that the left supports terrorist and the destruction of these United States."And on and on it goes, through hundreds of such thoughtful comments: The detainees are deserving not only of imprisonment, but death without trial or hearing, and the SCOTUS justices, themselves, should be imprisoned, killed or, at the very least, arbitrarily ignored.
"Democrat perfidy, they are traitors. The President should defy this ruling!"
"Interrogate and eliminate. Simple."
"Exactly, best solution. Shoot them, kill em. Don’t ask any questions"
"Kill them on the field of battle and wrap them in pork. They’re a bunch of 7th century savages and should(n't) be treated the same as U.S. citizens. No prisoners, no exceptions."
"IF Bush had a spine, he’d announce that the Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional authority by interfering with C-in-C duties of the President. In a just world, the five ‘justices’ who issued the garbage opinion would be detained in Gitmo by the end of the day."
"No more f’ing prisoners. Kill every damned one of them! I hope that one or two of the homicidal maniacs who get off because of this ruling take the opportunity to visit Ginsberg or Kennedy or Souter and thank them in person."
"Let’s gather up all the Gitmo detainees and release them back to their place of capture. Slow the cargo plane down and toss their asses out at about 5000 feet. Then we didn’t kill them, the impact with the sand did. I’ll volunteer to come along and help pry their fingers and push them out."
“The President should defy this ruling!”...There’s better reason to defy this one than other presidents have refused to enforce. Where is Andrew Jackson when you need him?
"Bush should tell the so-called Supreme Court that if they want to do something about it, they should send their army to do so. Otherwise, take a flying leap."
Try and grasp just how truly warped that mindset is:
Despite their professed reverence for our society's values and the idea that ours is the best system in the world, again and again, these self-proclaimed "patriotic Americans" advocate an imperial presidency that tramples underfoot the founding fathers' protections against tyranny.
Far from being patriots, these individuals' views reveal them to be, at their core, urine-soaked cowards who can't feel safe without a strong "Daddy" leader who rules with little more than a "because I said so." Talk about your creepy obsessions. And then to try and take your cringing devotion to a strong daddy hand, wrap it in the flag and question the loyalties of those who disagree?
As odious as I find the last several years' worth of accusations of insufficient patriotism, I have to ask, which position is truly the more un-American: Faith that, as they have for the past 230 years, the guiding principles of our government will see us through this difficult time, or the willingness--and, if truth be told--the outright enthusiasm to throw them away for a nigh-imperial leader?
When it comes to "the destruction of these United States," the latter is more damaging a blow than anything a thousand Gitmos-worth of detainees could accomplish.
No comments:
Post a Comment