Justices side with the enemy

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday waved the white flag of surrender before al-Qaida and its Islamo-fascist allies throughout the world.

That's how I interpret the ruling that terrorist enemy prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in civilian courts in the U.S.

Historically, the court has given the executive branch wide latitude in wartime. But now five of the nine black-robed justices, all well-protected from terrorist attack themselves, have decided to play armchair general roles.

In all likelihood, the president will probably decide to turn loose 270 foreign terrorist suspects rather than bring them inside the U.S. for circus-like hearings where they would be represented by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys.

Bush might as well pull the plug in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Without prisoners who can be interrogated, we're asking our military forces to fight blind of any intelligence. No brave young soldiers should be asked to sacrifice their lives needlessly – when the most privileged aristocrats in America are siding with the enemy.

Keep in mind, things will not get better next year – no matter who is elected president. Both Barack Obama and John McCain believe terrorist enemy prisoners, even in the midst of a war, have due process rights just like you and me.

But, come to think of it, what's really stunning about this Supreme Court ruling is the way you can contrast it with other landmark rulings about due process for actual American citizens.

Wasn't it this court that ruled actual American citizens had no right to keep their own property in the face of eminent domain claims by government?

Wasn't it the Supreme Court that found, in ruling in favor of the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold legislation, that Congress actually did have the power to limit freedom of political speech by actual American citizens?

Wasn't it the Supreme Court that ruled in 1935 that actual American citizens had no right to own gold and no right to be fairly compensated for it?

Wasn't it the Supreme Court that has consistently ruled, often wrongly, in favor of executive branch latitude in times of national emergency and war?

What the Supreme Court has been doing more and more for more than 100 years now is to create new rights for people, citizens or not, where none were previously seen while restricting the most basic and unalienable rights as defined by our Constitution.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has bestowed upon itself new powers never envisioned for the institution in the Constitution or by its framers for the institution.

These unaccountable high priests are no longer interpreting the law – they are perverting it, subverting it, overturning it, corrupting it, debasing it. They twist the law to the point it is no longer recognizable. This is how they empower themselves and force their own ideological will on the people, whom they regard as mere subjects.

And that is why America, founded on the principle of the rule of law and the will of the people, no longer respects either.

Just so you understand what's at stake in this ruling, know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of Sept. 11, is one of those prisoners at Guantanamo.

I believe if the American people understood what five members of the Supreme Court did yesterday, siding with the 9/11 attackers over U.S. civilians, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer would all be in danger of being lynched. Fortunately for them, the American people pay little attention to Supreme Court rulings.

As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote succinctly and accurately in his dissent: America "is at war with radical Islamists." The decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Related special offers:

"Betrayed by the Bench: How Judge-made Law has Transformed America's Constitution, Courts and Culture"

"Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America"