The American Spectator

Reader Mail

SCOTUS Pocus

6.16.08 @ 12:01AM

FLAMING THE DECISION
Re: Larry Thornberry's Supreme Cowardice and John Tabin's Lord Kennedy:

The Supreme Court decision makes it clear that the U.S. should take no prisoners. It worked well in the South Pacific. Gosh, those flame throwers were wonderful weapons!!!
-- Jack Hughes
Chicago, Illinois

As if more proof were needed, the Fab Five have proved once again their utter disregard and contempt for the American peopke. It also serves to prove no good can come from placing an ACLU lawyer on the Supreme Court. As for questions on the bar exam, I think it obvious there is only one: "Do you despise America and Americans, particularly those in the military?" If the answer is yes, you qualify to practice law (or enter politics via the Democrat party). Make no mistake, this is not a case of maybe they don't understand the Constitution or the individual issues at stake, they hate America with a white-hot hate and all Americans who love their country.
-- Daryl Wright

This decision needs to be overturned by a Conservative Supreme Court, another reason to vote for McCain. There are only two others: his support of a winning strategy: the surge and his reformist, pork-busting disdain for earmarks.
-- Sandra Mendoza
Tiburon, California

Question from the unintended-consequence-department: Could it be that in the future the U.S. military will report higher enemy KIA counts offset by lower enemy POW counts? Wouldn't be a shocker. Rather, seems that it should be expected. Ya think? All that Boumediene v. Bush may do in the long run is make life tougher and death more certain for future al Qa'eda wannabes. But then, it's not about them, it's about SCOTUS power...
-- Dennis Sevakis
Bloomfield, Michigan

We are so screwed! The good thing about this is there will now be fewer, illegal enemy combatants, legal enemy combatants, or any other prisoners of war of any stripe. Killed in the fire-fight or shot while trying to escape will be the phrase of the day I suspect, as it should be. It will be very unfortunate that we will lose many an opportunity to extract valuable intelligence from some who might otherwise be captured. (Of course, playing loud Boy George music probably doesn't extract much anymore.) This decision impacts intelligence gathering as well because of the consequences these five idiots apparently cannot begin to see.
-- Roger Ross

The Supreme Court's recent Boumediene v. Bush decision is absurd, but the consequences might be disastrous for the left. Since the Bush Administration already has released most of the Gitmo prisoners, the remainder is the worst of the worst. It therefore is likely that the civilian courts will examine all the remaining Gitmo cases and find that there is sufficient evidence to continue to detain every single one of them, without exception. This experience might teach the public an unforgettable lesson that the left's accusations that Gitmo holds a multitude of innocent victims has been a hysterical fantasy.

Since the civilian courts will have to make up all their procedures as they wade into this uncharted legal territory, it is likely that the civilian courts will entangle themselves in continual and embarrassing procedural thickets. The experience might teach the public an unforgettable lesson that the military can handle such cases much more effectively and rationally than civilian courts can.
-- Mike Sylwester
South Hackensack, New Jersey

I agree. It's hard to imagine the Waffen SS captured in the Ardennes immediately being given defense attorneys and a trial date. It's also hard to picture FDR inviting the German-American Bund into the American fold as the current administration has done for the "Council on American-Islamic Relations".

Nor do I recall Nazism ever being termed a "religion of peace" by an American president. Failure to name the enemy and to declare total war on him has invited him to subvert the home front, and no one should claim surprise at the results.
-- Bob Danielson

Those who think SCOTUS made a proper decision regarding terrorist "rights" should ask themselves a question: if it had been made on Sept. 12, 2001 instead of June 12, 2008, would you still be applauding it?
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

I totally agree with the 5-4 decision. If the so-called administration can't get their act together enough over 5, 6, 7 years these prisoners need to go free. Enough of that Texas-Wyoming BS. If these are such bad people, take them out, line 'em against that wall and shoot them. After all, they are in Cuba and the precedent was set back in '59.
-- Tom McGonnell
Alexandria, Virginia

It seems obvious to me that the driving force behind this Supreme Court decision is to increase lawyers' fees. If we release all these prisoners, lawyers will have no claims on the Treasury. I say this because the prisoners will all be released anyway, so let's avoid the legal fees.
-- Oldguy

Just think about it for a minute. That grunt crawling through that 140 degree sandbox, dodging fire and IED's, only able to dream about ice water, is fighting to give the guys trying to kill him the very same rights he has. Amazing.

If I were platoon leader, or company commander today, I would end all my briefings with three words. Take no prisoners.
-- Jim Karr
Blue Springs, Missouri
US Army 1966-1970

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Earmarks, Religion, Islam, Environment, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, NATO, Africa, Oil