The Supreme Court’s decision to put an end to President Bush’s “war court” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could result in the release of some terror suspects who are being held there. If they’re to be tried, it may have to be done through the same system any American citizen receives justice. In other words, some of them may be given a hundred dinar and a new djellaba and released.
What are the odds that any of the guests of Gitmo were read Miranda rights when picked up in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places? What are the chances the U.S. would be able to find somebody suicidal enough to go gather a “jury of their peers”? How long before one of them sues “big tobacco”? Questions abound.
Before you know it, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former bodyguard, driver and bomb caddy, may be behind the wheel of your cab.
Terror suspects are praising Allah for the Supreme Court’s ruling. There hasn’t been a party like this among the prisoners at Gitmo since it was announced they would all receive free subscriptions to the New York Times.
The Court ruled 5-3 to disallow Bush-style military trials for Gitmo detainees.
The five justices who voted against the military court were a group whose next colonoscopy may reveal an anomaly, and the large polyps will turn out to be their own heads – benign to them, malignant to the rest of us.
Those judges were: “Hades Librarian” Ruth Bader Ginsburg; one of Gerald Ford’s everlasting stumbles, John Paul Stevens; mamma’s boy, Stan Laurel ringer and tied for first with “read my lips” as George H.W. Bush’s biggest mistake, David Souter; another stain left on the black robe of the Court by Bill Clinton, alongside the Bader Ginsburg discharge – Stephen Breyer; and Reagan’s third-stringer after the Bork and Ginsburg nominations went, quasi literally, up in smoke, Anthony Kennedy.
Among the dissenters were Thomas, Alito and Scalia. Chief Justice Roberts rode the pine on this one, as he’d already ruled against Hamdan as a lower court judge.
Some are pulling no punches and calling the five majority justices “judicial jihadists” and the like, but the ruling is anything but surprising and will be used as a catalyst to accomplish what many have been calling for: getting rid of Gitmo.
That day is probably approaching rather rapidly – prepare to witness what will end up best described as Bastille Day for al-Qaida, the U.N. and the American left.
There have been repeated calls over the years, from the United Nations to “human rights advocates” to Geraldo Rivera, to close Gitmo. The people of this opinion are in luck, because they now obviously have the Supreme Court on their side.
If the aforementioned really wanted to close Gitmo, they’d take all the Court’s propensities into account and do something like this: Find a rich liberal, somebody perhaps like George Soros, to announce he wants to build a shopping mall where Gitmo stands.
This Supreme Court has proven their support for the confiscation of private property via eminent domain.
Let’s not forget the Kelo case, where the city of New London, Conn., squared off against homeowners who were trying to keep the municipality from condemning their houses for use as part of a redevelopment project, including a $270 million facility to be built by Pfizer.
The Supreme Court ruled against private property, and its decision was based simply on the fact that the economy of the area is depressed, and the project would bring in far more in tax revenue than the people who live there are now paying.
The ruling also saved area government from having to get rid of people the old-fashioned and slower way: by raising their property taxes until they can’t afford to pay them. Eventually, there would have been plenty of room for Pfizer due to Pforeclosures.
Those who want to close Gitmo should forget the “human rights” angle and just say they want to build a Baby Gap and Bed, Bath, and Beyond on Gitmo property, and they’ll get their wish. Plus, terror suspects can find gainful employment right on site. Call it a “Cuburban revitalization project” and the closure of Gitmo would be a done deal given the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
If we can ever convince a few members of the Supreme Court to be as concerned about the rights of U.S. citizens as they are with those of terror suspects, we’d be getting somewhere.
Related special offer:
